Thanks for your address to the nation. It's good to know you still want to talk to us after how we behaved in November.
Listen, can I be frank? Sending in 20,000 more troops just ain't gonna do the job. That will only bring the troop level back up to what it was last year. And we were losing the war last year! We've already had over a million troops serve some time in Iraq since 2003. Another few thousand is simply not enough to find those weapons of mass destruction! Er, I mean... bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice! Um, scratch that. Try this -- BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE MIDDLE EAST! YES!!!
You've got to show some courage, dude! You've got to win this one! C'mon, you got Saddam! You hung 'im high! I loved watching the video of that -- just like the old wild west! The bad guy wore black! The hangmen were as crazy as the hangee! Lynch mobs rule!!!
Look, I have to admit I feel very sorry for the predicament you're in. As Ricky Bobby said, "If you're not first, you're last." And you being humiliated in front of the whole world does NONE of us Americans any good.
Sir, listen to me. You have to send in MILLIONS of troops to Iraq, not thousands! The only way to lick this thing now is to flood Iraq with millions of us! I know that you're out of combat-ready soldiers -- so you have to look elsewhere! The only way you are going to beat a nation of 27 million -- Iraq -- is to send in at least 28 million! Here's how it would work:
The first 27 million Americans go in and kill one Iraqi each. That will quickly take care of any insurgency. The other one million of us will stay and rebuild the country. Simple.
Now, I know you're saying, where will I find 28 million Americans to go to Iraq? Here are some suggestions:
1. More than 62,000,000 Americans voted for you in the last election (the one that took place a year and half into a war we already knew we were losing). I am confident that at least a third of them would want to put their body where there vote was and sign up to volunteer. I know many of these people and, while we may disagree politically, I know that they don't believe someone else should have to go and fight their fight for them -- while they hide here in America.
2. Start a "Kill an Iraqi" Meet-Up group in cities across the country. I know this idea is so early-21st century, but I once went to a Lou Dobbs Meet-Up and, I swear, some of the best ideas happen after the third mojito. I'm sure you'll get another five million or so enlistees from this effort.
3. Send over all members of the mainstream media. After all, they were your collaborators in bringing us this war -- and many of them are already trained from having been "embedded!" If that doesn't bring the total to 28 million, then draft all viewers of the FOX News channel.
Mr. Bush, do not give up! Now is not the time to pull your punch! Don't be a weenie by sending in a few over-tired troops. Get your people behind you and YOU lead them in like a true commander in chief! Leave no conservative behind! Full speed ahead!
We promise to write. Go get 'em W!
Full Version: 20,000 more troops just ain't gonna do the job
New here.....why now? Well, I used to support this war thing in part if not in whole, in principal if not heart. I voted Republican because I thought changing horses in the middle of the stream was not a good idea. However, I've not been happy with the way things have been going in Iraq, and after the speech last night I'm confounded as to what Bush thinks can be achieved by continued involvement in a country whose population has no real idea what Bush thinks they will gain from putting their lives on the line against insurgents.
Bush is pushing an agenda on the Iraqi people that amounts to a fantasy in the minds of most of Iraqis. Most have no idea what life would be like if they had this democracy and so called freedom. The only freedom most of Iraq knows is the freedom each day of not having a family member maimed or killed by insurgents or outsiders. As for their government they voted in last year...well all that was just a go to the polls and see who can get their faction to have the most control over Iraq's oil from which that group then expected to benefit. I dare say, I hardly think they voted because they were so thrilled to be able to try to establish a democracy.
I don't want to get down on the Iraqi people. But they have been living in turmoil and daily threats from each other -as our gangs in the USA do on a smaller scale- within their factions long before we ever went over there and they still don't understand any other way of life. Some might, but as a whole it's a lost cause to try to save them from themselves. They could have banded together and gotten rid of Sadam themselves had they had any sense of joining factions in common cause. They didn't because they are too geared to separation by faction and loyalty to that and nothing more. No amount of troops is going to change their mindset. If anything they will finally find that one common enemy to fight against and band their factions together to fight us off.
Bush seems to not be able to do the hard core thing, which would be to leave them to their own fights. Currently, the fights over there are between Iraqis so I say, let them have it! Bush said all this 'sensable' stuff about how if we leave now the Terrorist insurgents will take over Iraq and blah blah....well, I say better sooner than later because no matter what we do or how many people lose their lives for this 'cause' as soon as we are gone they will backslide to the most cruel bully that comes along to threaten them. A history of dictators in the Middle East will continue until the people themselves find the strength to stop it without our help.
In closing....Religion is the root of all evil!
Bush is pushing an agenda on the Iraqi people that amounts to a fantasy in the minds of most of Iraqis. Most have no idea what life would be like if they had this democracy and so called freedom. The only freedom most of Iraq knows is the freedom each day of not having a family member maimed or killed by insurgents or outsiders. As for their government they voted in last year...well all that was just a go to the polls and see who can get their faction to have the most control over Iraq's oil from which that group then expected to benefit. I dare say, I hardly think they voted because they were so thrilled to be able to try to establish a democracy.
I don't want to get down on the Iraqi people. But they have been living in turmoil and daily threats from each other -as our gangs in the USA do on a smaller scale- within their factions long before we ever went over there and they still don't understand any other way of life. Some might, but as a whole it's a lost cause to try to save them from themselves. They could have banded together and gotten rid of Sadam themselves had they had any sense of joining factions in common cause. They didn't because they are too geared to separation by faction and loyalty to that and nothing more. No amount of troops is going to change their mindset. If anything they will finally find that one common enemy to fight against and band their factions together to fight us off.
Bush seems to not be able to do the hard core thing, which would be to leave them to their own fights. Currently, the fights over there are between Iraqis so I say, let them have it! Bush said all this 'sensable' stuff about how if we leave now the Terrorist insurgents will take over Iraq and blah blah....well, I say better sooner than later because no matter what we do or how many people lose their lives for this 'cause' as soon as we are gone they will backslide to the most cruel bully that comes along to threaten them. A history of dictators in the Middle East will continue until the people themselves find the strength to stop it without our help.
In closing....Religion is the root of all evil!
QUOTE (Bushisacoward @ Jan 11 2007, 06:17 PM) 
Thanks for your address to the nation. It's good to know you still want to talk to us after how we behaved in November.
Listen, can I be frank? Sending in 20,000 more troops just ain't gonna do the job. That will only bring the troop level back up to what it was last year. And we were losing the war last year! We've already had over a million troops serve some time in Iraq since 2003. Another few thousand is simply not enough to find those weapons of mass destruction! Er, I mean... bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice! Um, scratch that. Try this -- BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE MIDDLE EAST! YES!!!
You've got to show some courage, dude! You've got to win this one! C'mon, you got Saddam! You hung 'im high! I loved watching the video of that -- just like the old wild west! The bad guy wore black! The hangmen were as crazy as the hangee! Lynch mobs rule!!!
Look, I have to admit I feel very sorry for the predicament you're in. As Ricky Bobby said, "If you're not first, you're last." And you being humiliated in front of the whole world does NONE of us Americans any good.
Sir, listen to me. You have to send in MILLIONS of troops to Iraq, not thousands! The only way to lick this thing now is to flood Iraq with millions of us! I know that you're out of combat-ready soldiers -- so you have to look elsewhere! The only way you are going to beat a nation of 27 million -- Iraq -- is to send in at least 28 million! Here's how it would work:
The first 27 million Americans go in and kill one Iraqi each. That will quickly take care of any insurgency. The other one million of us will stay and rebuild the country. Simple.
Now, I know you're saying, where will I find 28 million Americans to go to Iraq? Here are some suggestions:
1. More than 62,000,000 Americans voted for you in the last election (the one that took place a year and half into a war we already knew we were losing). I am confident that at least a third of them would want to put their body where there vote was and sign up to volunteer. I know many of these people and, while we may disagree politically, I know that they don't believe someone else should have to go and fight their fight for them -- while they hide here in America.
2. Start a "Kill an Iraqi" Meet-Up group in cities across the country. I know this idea is so early-21st century, but I once went to a Lou Dobbs Meet-Up and, I swear, some of the best ideas happen after the third mojito. I'm sure you'll get another five million or so enlistees from this effort.
3. Send over all members of the mainstream media. After all, they were your collaborators in bringing us this war -- and many of them are already trained from having been "embedded!" If that doesn't bring the total to 28 million, then draft all viewers of the FOX News channel.
Mr. Bush, do not give up! Now is not the time to pull your punch! Don't be a weenie by sending in a few over-tired troops. Get your people behind you and YOU lead them in like a true commander in chief! Leave no conservative behind! Full speed ahead!
We promise to write. Go get 'em W!
Listen, can I be frank? Sending in 20,000 more troops just ain't gonna do the job. That will only bring the troop level back up to what it was last year. And we were losing the war last year! We've already had over a million troops serve some time in Iraq since 2003. Another few thousand is simply not enough to find those weapons of mass destruction! Er, I mean... bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice! Um, scratch that. Try this -- BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE MIDDLE EAST! YES!!!
You've got to show some courage, dude! You've got to win this one! C'mon, you got Saddam! You hung 'im high! I loved watching the video of that -- just like the old wild west! The bad guy wore black! The hangmen were as crazy as the hangee! Lynch mobs rule!!!
Look, I have to admit I feel very sorry for the predicament you're in. As Ricky Bobby said, "If you're not first, you're last." And you being humiliated in front of the whole world does NONE of us Americans any good.
Sir, listen to me. You have to send in MILLIONS of troops to Iraq, not thousands! The only way to lick this thing now is to flood Iraq with millions of us! I know that you're out of combat-ready soldiers -- so you have to look elsewhere! The only way you are going to beat a nation of 27 million -- Iraq -- is to send in at least 28 million! Here's how it would work:
The first 27 million Americans go in and kill one Iraqi each. That will quickly take care of any insurgency. The other one million of us will stay and rebuild the country. Simple.
Now, I know you're saying, where will I find 28 million Americans to go to Iraq? Here are some suggestions:
1. More than 62,000,000 Americans voted for you in the last election (the one that took place a year and half into a war we already knew we were losing). I am confident that at least a third of them would want to put their body where there vote was and sign up to volunteer. I know many of these people and, while we may disagree politically, I know that they don't believe someone else should have to go and fight their fight for them -- while they hide here in America.
2. Start a "Kill an Iraqi" Meet-Up group in cities across the country. I know this idea is so early-21st century, but I once went to a Lou Dobbs Meet-Up and, I swear, some of the best ideas happen after the third mojito. I'm sure you'll get another five million or so enlistees from this effort.
3. Send over all members of the mainstream media. After all, they were your collaborators in bringing us this war -- and many of them are already trained from having been "embedded!" If that doesn't bring the total to 28 million, then draft all viewers of the FOX News channel.
Mr. Bush, do not give up! Now is not the time to pull your punch! Don't be a weenie by sending in a few over-tired troops. Get your people behind you and YOU lead them in like a true commander in chief! Leave no conservative behind! Full speed ahead!
We promise to write. Go get 'em W!
I am so proud. Your conversion to patroitism just overwhelms me.
Hope it did not hurt to much? really
The Poster works how did ever you think of it?
The "surge" is nothing more than the same continuing lies and incompetence from Bush.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0112-02.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011207a.html
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Olberman...Cliff_0112.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0112-02.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011207a.html
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Olberman...Cliff_0112.html
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 13 2007, 04:43 AM)
The "surge" is nothing more than the same continuing lies and incompetence from Bush.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0112-02.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011207a.html
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Olberman...Cliff_0112.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0112-02.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011207a.html
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Olberman...Cliff_0112.html
CNN (Communalist News Network)
Headline:
Poll: Two-thirds of Americans oppose more troops in Iraq
POSTED: 4:55 p.m. EST, January 12, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/12/pol...ef=rss_politics
Now if I may for the details of this limited skewed poll.
Interviews with 1,093 adult Americans conducted by telephone
by Opinion Research Corporation on January 11, 2007. The
margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample
is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
NOTE***
Did you happen to watch or listen to any of Bush's speech on Iraq last night, or not?
Jan. 11 2007
Yes, watched speech 43%
No, did not 57%
Thusly, of the 1093 people who answered the Poll, nearly 60% or 623 DID NOT KNOW WHAT BUSH’S PLAN specifically detailed nor what he actually said the troops were going to do once there.
How can that be an informed choice to opine about, not on the specifics, as asked to do. But on some other external factors that cannot be measured or calculated in the mathematical supposition that is embedded in the formula used in polling.
It is like a jury voting for death and or acquittal where 57% of the Jury did not listen or even go to the hearing.
Relying instead on their others views of facts, personal bias, gossip, and or perhaps news accounts of various punditries and rivalries who spin conjectures laid forth by the agenda of a particular media. Some of which as we all know are clearly wholly ill informed and or far from objective being overcome in one form or another in some type of Bias and agenda.
Would that be fair to accused?
Thusly, any reasonable person of even moderated objectivity person would conclude that 57% answered the questions with only the benefit of prior bias and views much conjectured and hyped before he even spoke. Thereby subjectively distorting the outcome since they had NO idea nor really cared what he had to say no matter what it was.
Yet, oddly when asked IF SENDING THE EXTRA TROOPS would make a difference an odd statistical abdominally appeared, showing ether most respondents either were ambiguous and or ill informed as to what the extra troops were to attempt to accomplish there.
Do you think sending about 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq will make it more likely or less likely that the U.S. will achieve its goals in Iraq, or will the additional troops not make much difference?
(NOTE THIS IS WORDED AS AN EITHER OR QUESTION of either “more likely or less likely” ONLY) Likewise, what are these ambiguously unsaid US goals they are speaking of. Are they perhaps goals of winning in Iraq, or perhaps goals of stabilizing Iraq so we can with drawthal or perhaps they are only goals of spreading the war?
All other responses should be discarded as being not responsive to the specific either or question asked.
Jan. 11 2007
More likely 31% (POSITIVE)
Less likely 18% (NEGATIVE)
No difference 48%(NEUTRAL-centralist)
No opinion 3% (NEUTRAL-Centralist)
Now when you compare the no spin details of hyperbolic sound bit of the Communalism’s Network’s Headline.
You see that only 50% strongly oppose, which is unquestionably a Negative vote.
Yet as usual leaving one to self interpret what NO opinion of 3% and Moderately oppose of 18% actually means and includes as if being anything but Neutral as in neither negative nor positive.
Yet, the pollster and the network interpreted these neutral votes not as either ambiguous responses as to or question asked and as neither negative nor positive as they are. Instead, they took it upon themselves to add that 18% to the negative side of the equation when the actual answer of Moderate is a centralist response neither factually provable nor factual disprovable as being negative nor positive based on the either or components of the question as asked.
Regardless of how you feel about the war in general, do you FAVOR OR OPPOSE President Bush's plan to send about 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq in an attempt to stabilize the situation there?
Jan. 11 2007
Favor 32%
Oppose 66%
No opinion 3%
Do you favor/oppose strongly or only moderately?
Strongly favor 19%( POSITIVE)
Moderately favor 13% (NEUTRAL-Centralist)
Moderately oppose 16% (NEUTRAL-centralist)
Strongly oppose 50% (NEGATIVE)
No opinion 3% (NEUTRAL-Centralist)
Again begging a subjective interpretation of what MODERATELY means. Which is reasonably: to a moderate sufficient extent or degree; not extreme; centrist: a person who takes a position in the political center. Meaning, the response is neither positive nor negative but somewhere in between as in neutral and centralists.
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/01/12/rel1a.pdf
Love and Jihad sister!
TUM DII DAI DII, TUM CHUA DAI CHUA! ฝรง
THA T
IS
ALL!
QUOTE
The Communalist mindset, An echo, asking a shadow to dance, in a soundless room and a perpetual fog of ambiguity, always assuming substance, but clearly lacking any.-TRADER
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 12 2007, 09:43 PM)
The "surge" is nothing more than the same continuing lies and incompetence from Bush.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0112-02.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011207a.html
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Olberman...Cliff_0112.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0112-02.htm
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011207a.html
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Olberman...Cliff_0112.html
Bush's Iraq Speech Annotated:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0111-25.htm
A Speech That Ignored The Real Disaster:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/11/opi.../eddisaster.php
http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenter...repubescen.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huff...s-_b_38131.html
http://www.daily-chronicle.com/articles/20...lumnists01b.txt
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/08/...in2336887.shtml
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 13 2007, 09:20 AM)
Bush's Iraq Speech Annotated:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0111-25.htm
Policy by committee equals the mob and the mob equals anarchy...Troop Surge Already Under Way 21,500 troops are on the way...
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2785532
A Speech That Ignored The Real Disaster:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/11/opi.../eddisaster.php
Page Not Found:
The selected resource is currently not available.
http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenter...repubescen.html
Not Found
The requested URL /p_m_carpenter...repubescen.html was not found on this server.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huff...s-_b_38131.html
Page not found
Sorry that page does not exist on this site.
http://www.daily-chronicle.com/articles/20...lumnists01b.txt
I'm afraid we're losing, Mr. President | Comments (0)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/08/...in2336887.shtml
Not Found
The requested URL /stories/2007/01/08/...in2336887.shtml was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 301 Moved Permanently error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Empty rebukes for a very empty idea eh D2d2. That is the problem when you let others think for you while trolling the Nets viruses of regurgitation. You come empty more often than not, eh comrade....
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0111-25.htm
Policy by committee equals the mob and the mob equals anarchy...Troop Surge Already Under Way 21,500 troops are on the way...
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2785532
QUOTE
SPEAKER: PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH
BUSH: Good evening.
Tonight in Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror and our safety here at home.
The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement.
We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together and, that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.
But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad, overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaida terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis.
They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra -- in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate.
Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. size=3]Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.[/size]
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review.
We consulted members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts.
We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.
On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.
Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.
Let me explain the main elements of this effort.
The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts.
When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations; conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door- to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.
This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad.
This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations.
Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not.
Here are the differences.
In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents but, when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned.
This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.
In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods. [B]And Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people. And it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.
Now is the time to act. The prime minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of sectarian or political affiliation.
This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering.
Yet, over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents.
When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas.
Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace. And reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.
A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November.
To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.
To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.
To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.
And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.
America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division.
We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped Army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq.
We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance.
We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance.
And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.
As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue Al Qaida and foreign fighters.
Al Qaida is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar province. Al Qaida has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital.
A captured Al Qaida document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring Al Qaida closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.
Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing Al Qaida leaders and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on Al Qaida. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists.
So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away Al Qaida's safe haven in Afghanistan, and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge.
This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.
We will expand intelligence sharing, and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival.
These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors, and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government.
We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an international compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform.
And, on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region to build support for Iraq and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.
In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy, by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom, and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.
From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq.
They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists, or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?
The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security.
Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue. And we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties.
The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.
Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship.
But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world: a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them, and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.
Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq.
Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States and, therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down Al Qaida. [U]Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces.
We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale.
Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.
In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. [U[If members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust.[/U]
Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.
Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my Administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress.
We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas, where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.
In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary, and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time.
They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty.
We mourn the loss of every fallen American, and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.
Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom.
Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation.
And, throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.
We go forward with trust that the author of liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.
BUSH: Good evening.
Tonight in Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror and our safety here at home.
The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement.
We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together and, that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.
But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad, overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaida terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis.
They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra -- in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate.
Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. size=3]Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.[/size]
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review.
We consulted members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts.
We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.
On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.
Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.
Let me explain the main elements of this effort.
The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts.
When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations; conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door- to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.
This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad.
This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations.
Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not.
Here are the differences.
In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents but, when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned.
This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.
In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods. [B]And Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people. And it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.
Now is the time to act. The prime minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of sectarian or political affiliation.
This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering.
Yet, over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents.
When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas.
Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace. And reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.
A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November.
To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.
To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.
To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.
And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.
America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division.
We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped Army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq.
We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance.
We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance.
And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.
As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue Al Qaida and foreign fighters.
Al Qaida is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar province. Al Qaida has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital.
A captured Al Qaida document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring Al Qaida closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.
Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing Al Qaida leaders and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on Al Qaida. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists.
So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away Al Qaida's safe haven in Afghanistan, and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge.
This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.
We will expand intelligence sharing, and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival.
These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors, and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government.
We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an international compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform.
And, on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region to build support for Iraq and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.
In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy, by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom, and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.
From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq.
They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists, or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?
The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security.
Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue. And we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties.
The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.
Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship.
But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world: a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them, and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.
Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq.
Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States and, therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down Al Qaida. [U]Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces.
We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale.
Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.
In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. [U[If members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust.[/U]
Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.
Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my Administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress.
We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas, where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.
In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary, and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time.
They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty.
We mourn the loss of every fallen American, and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.
Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom.
Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation.
And, throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.
We go forward with trust that the author of liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.
A Speech That Ignored The Real Disaster:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/11/opi.../eddisaster.php
Page Not Found:
The selected resource is currently not available.
http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenter...repubescen.html
Not Found
The requested URL /p_m_carpenter...repubescen.html was not found on this server.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huff...s-_b_38131.html
Page not found
Sorry that page does not exist on this site.
http://www.daily-chronicle.com/articles/20...lumnists01b.txt
I'm afraid we're losing, Mr. President | Comments (0)http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/08/...in2336887.shtml
Not Found
The requested URL /stories/2007/01/08/...in2336887.shtml was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 301 Moved Permanently error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Empty rebukes for a very empty idea eh D2d2. That is the problem when you let others think for you while trolling the Nets viruses of regurgitation. You come empty more often than not, eh comrade....
QUOTE (ustrader @ Jan 13 2007, 05:48 AM)
A Speech That Ignored The Real Disaster:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/11/opi.../eddisaster.php
Page Not Found:
The selected resource is currently not available.
http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenter...repubescen.html
Not Found
The requested URL /p_m_carpenter...repubescen.html was not found on this server.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huff...s-_b_38131.html
Page not found
Sorry that page does not exist on this site.
http://www.daily-chronicle.com/articles/20...lumnists01b.txt
I'm afraid we're losing, Mr. President | Comments (0)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/08/...in2336887.shtml
Not Found
The requested URL /stories/2007/01/08/...in2336887.shtml was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 301 Moved Permanently error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Empty rebukes for a very empty idea eh D2d2. That is the problem when you let others think for you while trolling the Nets viruses of regurgitation. You come empty more often than not, eh comrade....
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/11/opi.../eddisaster.php
Page Not Found:
The selected resource is currently not available.
http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenter...repubescen.html
Not Found
The requested URL /p_m_carpenter...repubescen.html was not found on this server.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huff...s-_b_38131.html
Page not found
Sorry that page does not exist on this site.
http://www.daily-chronicle.com/articles/20...lumnists01b.txt
I'm afraid we're losing, Mr. President | Comments (0)http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/08/...in2336887.shtml
Not Found
The requested URL /stories/2007/01/08/...in2336887.shtml was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 301 Moved Permanently error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Empty rebukes for a very empty idea eh D2d2. That is the problem when you let others think for you while trolling the Nets viruses of regurgitation. You come empty more often than not, eh comrade....
Start rolling up your pantlegs, it's too late to save your shoes.
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 13 2007, 11:11 PM)
Start rolling up your pantlegs, it's too late to save your shoes.
OUCH!! YOUR MEAN.
Allah alim! Maf Hoom?
OUCH!! YOUR MEAN.
Allah alim! Maf Hoom?Transcript: Democratic Response to President's Weekly Address
Good morning. This is Congressman Tim Walz of Minnesota. Last November, voters in Minnesota and across the country sent a clear message at the ballot box when they voted for change.
They cast their votes for new leadership in Washington and a new Democratic Congress that would help change the course in Iraq, end the culture of corruption in Washington, and give hard-working families a voice in Congress once again.
They voted for a Congress that would do the business of the American people, and one that would be known for its ideas, not its insults, its patriotism, not its partisanship.
I know that as I speak to you today, you are gravely concerned about the war in Iraq.
As the highest ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress and a veteran who served in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, I share your concerns.
After nearly four years of combat, we have lost more than 3,000 brave Americans. Tens of thousands have been wounded. And we've spent more than $300 billion.
Now, as the President escalates our involvement in Iraq and puts more of our troops in harm's way, I think of the men and women I served with in the 1st Brigade, 34th Infantry Division of the Minnesota National Guard.
Those brave men and women, and their families, just received letters informing them that they won't be coming home this winter, after all. After their second year-long tour of duty since 9/11, they'll be staying in Iraq even longer for this escalation.
Our military men and women know that it is their duty to execute their mission without question. But so too is it our duty to question the mission on their behalf. Rest assured that this Democratic Congress will live up to its responsibility to challenge the failed policies that have already cost us so dearly.
Before moving forward with this escalation, we owe it to these troops, to their families, and to all Americans to ask the tough questions and demand honest answers about this policy.
Is there a clear strategy that the commanders on the ground believe will succeed?
What are the benchmarks for success, and how long does the President believe it will take to achieve them? Is this a policy that will contribute to the America's security in the larger war on terror, or distract from it?
I believe, along with most Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans, that the escalation announced by the President will compound a bad situation and make matters worse, not better. It will make us less secure, not more. It is a step in the wrong direction -- more of the same at the very time when we need a new direction in Iraq.
Let us be very clear. We need diplomatic and political solutions in Iraq, not more American troops. We know that the forgotten cost of the President's plan will be borne by the husbands and wives and sons and daughters of the brave men and women who will be away from home for an even longer period of time because of the President's misguided decision.
So Democrats will ask the tough questions, conduct meaningful oversight and do everything possible to honor our men and women in uniform. At the same time, we will continue to honor our pledge to enact some of the American people's top priorities in the first 100 hours of the new Congress. We promised to pass ethics reforms, increase the minimum wage, help ensure our security here at home and to exercise fiscal responsibility.
Today, I am proud to report that in just over one week as the majority party in Congress, Democrats are delivering.
Democrats acted swiftly to clean up Washington and approved the most comprehensive ethics reforms in decades.
We stood up for hard-working families and approved a minimum wage increase, which will give 13 million Americans the pay raise they deserve.
And we offered patients suffering from debilitating diseases new hope when we approved a bill to expand potentially life-saving stem cell research.
Democrats in Congress also acted decisively to secure our nation by approving new measures to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
In a short period of time, we've [the Democratic Congress] won real victories on behalf of the American people, but we know there is more work to be done. In the coming days, we'll complete our 100 hours agenda by passing legislation to make college more affordable, end subsidies for oil companies, and invest in renewable sources of energy.
And as we go forward, we will continue to stand together and ensure American families have the strong voice in Washington they deserve.
This is Congressman Tim Walz of Minnesota. Thank you for listening.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243596,00.html
First, is there even unanimity of opinion and view within the Democrat party?
Second, Is a 53.6% majority in the House and a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate with one Democrat NOT likely to vote for a very along time, a mandate or merely a message?
Thirdly, Can they REALLY DO ANYTHING without substantially working with the Republicans and the President?
As to Iraq;
SO WHAT ARE IN THE DETAILS OF THAT NEW DEMOCRATIC DIRECTION FOR IRAQ?
WHAT ARE THE DEMOCRATS BENCHMARKS FOR SUCCESS IN IRAQ?
WHAT SPECIFICALLY DO THEY MEAN BY THEIR ONLY PROPOSED SOLUTION AS TO IRAQ, WHEN THEY SAID" We need diplomatic and political solutions in Iraq, not more American troops?
SIMILARLY, WHERE IS THE DEBATE ABOUT THE REAL AND OR POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF "RETREAT AND DEFEAT IN IRAQ" THAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL NOT OR DARE NOT TALK ABOUT?
Bush challenges Iraq strategy skeptics
"TO OPPOSE EVERYTHING WHILE PROPOSING NOTHING IS IRRESPONSIBLE," Bush said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_4
What are the consequences of retreating in defeat from Iraq?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_...t_if_it_fails_1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070112/...ngresspresident
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070112/...smcomfortsenemy
TUM DII DAI DII, TUM CHUA DAI CHUA! ฝรง
THA T
IS
ALL!
QUOTE
The Communalist mindset, An echo, asking a shadow to dance, in a soundless room and a perpetual fog of ambiguity, always assuming substance, but clearly lacking any.-TRADER
"The Most Dangerous Foreign Policy Blunder Since Vietnam"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,459369,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,459369,00.html
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 14 2007, 12:10 PM)
"The Most Dangerous Foreign Policy Blunder Since Vietnam"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,459369,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,459369,00.html
Bush challenges Iraq strategy skeptics
"TO OPPOSE EVERYTHING WHILE PROPOSING NOTHING IS IRRESPONSIBLE," Bush said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_4
What are the consequences of retreating in defeat from Iraq?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_...t_if_it_fails_1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070112/...ngresspresident
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070112/...smcomfortsenemy
HOORAY!!!
"My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military." Gen. Smedley Butler (USMC Ret.)
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 14 2007, 11:51 PM)
"My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military." Gen. Smedley Butler (USMC Ret.)
What is a cynic, a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing? -Oscar Wilde.
More doublethink, Dronge, I think!
Bush challenges Iraq strategy skeptics
"TO OPPOSE EVERYTHING WHILE PROPOSING NOTHING IS IRRESPONSIBLE," Bush said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_4
What are the consequences of retreating in defeat from Iraq?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_...t_if_it_fails_1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070112/...ngresspresident
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070112/...smcomfortsenemy
[/size][/b]
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 15 2007, 10:00 AM)
QUOTE
The Communalist mindset, An echo, asking a shadow to dance, in a soundless room and a perpetual fog of ambiguity, always assuming substance, but clearly lacking any.-TRADER
LEAD, FOLLOW or GET THE F*CK OUT OF THE WAY!!!
Bush challenges Iraq strategy skeptics
"TO OPPOSE EVERYTHING WHILE PROPOSING NOTHING IS IRRESPONSIBLE," Bush said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_4
What are the consequences of retreating in defeat from Iraq?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070113/ap_on_...t_if_it_fails_1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070112/...ngresspresident
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070112/...smcomfortsenemy
"The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia (Iraq) into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information...we are today not far from disaster."
Col. T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia), August, 1920
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/#46705
Col. T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia), August, 1920
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/#46705
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 15 2007, 01:17 PM)
"The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia (Iraq) into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information...we are today not far from disaster."
Col. T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia), August, 1920
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/#46705
Col. T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia), August, 1920
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/#46705
QUOTE
The broken record of redundancy, an echo, asking a shadow to dance, in a soundless room, evermore in a perpetual fog of ambiguity, always in repeats of bellowed sounds to inaction forever lost in the fog of indecisiveness’s indecorousness.-TRADER
QUOTE
There are those people in this world, who believe in what they do, willingly paying any price for it. They race to the forefront with speed and guile, leading the charge onto the task, paying all, getting little, except the nay of cynic’s blinded deceits.
Then, there are those people in this world who say they believe in what they do, wanting it, yet unwillingly paying any price for it, ye through others alone.
They, bellow like a great lions. However, follow in the shadows, like meek sheep, never leading, always following and bellowing, wanting sheepishly what they cannot or will not do for themselves.
In turn, eventually, nay always, calling for others to come running to fight what they once sightlessly never feared. Yet, seen upon them, now, near to late to save their sightless fate, by only, those they berate.-TRADER
Then, there are those people in this world who say they believe in what they do, wanting it, yet unwillingly paying any price for it, ye through others alone.
They, bellow like a great lions. However, follow in the shadows, like meek sheep, never leading, always following and bellowing, wanting sheepishly what they cannot or will not do for themselves.
In turn, eventually, nay always, calling for others to come running to fight what they once sightlessly never feared. Yet, seen upon them, now, near to late to save their sightless fate, by only, those they berate.-TRADER
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 16 2007, 07:36 AM)
Hablo Espanol? Might as well, for in neither link was any mention of any solution. Only a question of another's solution, which as we know in 80% of all questions is a statement and in 80% of all statement is an agenda. This one being just say NO and then remain silent and deaf as to what comes next when you do.
They, bellow like a great lions. However, follow in the shadows, like meek sheep, never leading, always following and bellowing, wanting sheepishly what they cannot or will not do for themselves.
In turn, eventually, nay always, calling for others to come running to fight what they once sightlessly never feared. Yet, seen upon them, now, near to late to save their sightless fate, by only, those they berate.
QUOTE
We can't see the future, blinded in foresight as to the past. The present is only an instant its outcomes made for either the victories of the strong, quick and decisive, or the defeats of the weak, slow and huddling indecisive, everything else is immutable by these chooses, as history.
Never before has a US President been so despised, ridiculed and insulted by so many for so great a span of time as the lying, ignorant, arrogant, incompetent George W. Bush. May he rot.
"...the neocons thought we were due for a war. Thinktank gunjockeys looking for a fight. Do they personally have some human qualities? Who cares. May they rot."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/...id_b_38703.html
"...the neocons thought we were due for a war. Thinktank gunjockeys looking for a fight. Do they personally have some human qualities? Who cares. May they rot."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/...id_b_38703.html
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 16 2007, 10:16 AM)
Never before has a US President been so despised, ridiculed and insulted by so many for so great a span of time as the lying, ignorant, arrogant, incompetent George W. Bush. May he rot.
"...the neocons thought we were due for a war. Thinktank gunjockeys looking for a fight. Do they personally have some human qualities? Who cares. May they rot."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/...id_b_38703.html
"...the neocons thought we were due for a war. Thinktank gunjockeys looking for a fight. Do they personally have some human qualities? Who cares. May they rot."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/...id_b_38703.html
Jane Smiley should stick to novels. The depth of her understanding lead her to attribute the 2004 election results to the ignorance of 58 million Americans who voted for Bush. She's right up there with Rosie Odonnell as a social critic MARK
The ignorance of 58 million Americans who voted for Bush? You got that exactly right. But very few of them are still so ignorant. You irrational chickenhawks are still so busy hatemongering and warmongering, trying to bash Dems and others that you just keep on being suckers for Bush's lies and corruption. You are so completely without a valid defense of Bush's incompetence that all you can do is shoot at messengers in accordance with your vast stupidity. It's no longer about about conservatives, liberals, Republicans or Democrats or any ideology. The compelling issue now is the monumental destruction, the worst President and worst foreign policy blunder in modern history, the catastrophic mess that Bush the moron and the greedy, crooked neocons have created.
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 16 2007, 11:53 AM)
The ignorance of 58 million Americans who voted for Bush? You got that exactly right. But very few of them are still so ignorant. You irrational chickenhawks are still so busy hatemongering and warmongering, trying to bash Dems and others that you just keep on being suckers for Bush's lies and corruption. You are so completely without a valid defense of Bush's incompetence that all you can do is shoot at messengers in accordance with your vast stupidity. It's no longer about about conservatives, liberals, Republicans or Democrats or any ideology. The compelling issue now is the monumental destruction, the worst President and worst foreign policy blunder in modern history, the catastrophic mess that Bush the moron and the greedy, crooked neocons have created.
Wow! is that you talking or does somebody got their hand up your #####, manipulating the movements of your mouth? And my criticism was directed at Jane Smiley and Rosie Odonnell. Smiley probably doesnt even have the slightest idea what a neocon is other than who has been branded as one by the media. And kind of silly to blame the war on the Neocons when it was Congress who approved it. MARK
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 16 2007, 11:16 PM)
Never before has a US President been so despised, ridiculed and insulted by so many for so great a span of time as the lying, ignorant, arrogant, incompetent George W. Bush. May he rot.
"...the neocons thought we were due for a war. Thinktank gunjockeys looking for a fight. Do they personally have some human qualities? Who cares. May they rot."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/...id_b_38703.html
"...the neocons thought we were due for a war. Thinktank gunjockeys looking for a fight. Do they personally have some human qualities? Who cares. May they rot."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/...id_b_38703.html
For a brief moment, I though you had conveyed some originally created ideas, then after reading your articles harange, I realized, nay, you don't speak Americanize.
QUOTE
Jane, for one with such esteemed intellectual laudable merits, your ranker of hubris and self evident compulsive obsession, transposed into undertones of seething hatred and loathing of ALL you stand against, in Bush and his so called hate/warmongers and the so called “idiots” who voted for them. Leaves unsaid, your own responsibilities, for your ideological failures and misguided conceits, which perhaps demur more in the creation and continuance, as can be credited by those you so defile.
Perhaps your obsessions of an era near to pass should be more gilded by your failed ideology to persuade and evolve into constructive plausible realties of actions, yet presumed in such perfection and infallibilities, though yielding little merit in showing the way forward, only covered in obsessed ranker over the way backward.
There is an old saying, LEAD, FOLLOW, OR, GET OUT OF THE WAY. Jane, in your wisdom here, you have chosen none of these three calls to action. But instead have chosen a forth towards further inaction, wasting you time, energies and capacities on what is now near concluded, leaving the way forward, as blank and unattended in the actions of realities ideas, as your kind did in past.
It is time to get out of the obsessing box of ranker and revile, and step up with persuasive ideas and perspectives looking to the future.
Yet, I think those of like minded intellectual nilpotent may not be of character to see beyond this new paradigm which obsesses in idioms of doublethink and cynical me-ism, stuck in yesterday. Still currently obsessing in ranker, hate and despise, while lurking and bellowing of yesteryear in narrowed alleyways of vacuity, still inattentive to the reality of morrows. Having none, nor, looking for substantial dreams of what you will do, in the morrows, still blindly coveting in bellows of yesteryear your failed sorrows.
Perhaps your obsessions of an era near to pass should be more gilded by your failed ideology to persuade and evolve into constructive plausible realties of actions, yet presumed in such perfection and infallibilities, though yielding little merit in showing the way forward, only covered in obsessed ranker over the way backward.
There is an old saying, LEAD, FOLLOW, OR, GET OUT OF THE WAY. Jane, in your wisdom here, you have chosen none of these three calls to action. But instead have chosen a forth towards further inaction, wasting you time, energies and capacities on what is now near concluded, leaving the way forward, as blank and unattended in the actions of realities ideas, as your kind did in past.
It is time to get out of the obsessing box of ranker and revile, and step up with persuasive ideas and perspectives looking to the future.
Yet, I think those of like minded intellectual nilpotent may not be of character to see beyond this new paradigm which obsesses in idioms of doublethink and cynical me-ism, stuck in yesterday. Still currently obsessing in ranker, hate and despise, while lurking and bellowing of yesteryear in narrowed alleyways of vacuity, still inattentive to the reality of morrows. Having none, nor, looking for substantial dreams of what you will do, in the morrows, still blindly coveting in bellows of yesteryear your failed sorrows.
IT IS double posting again...
QUOTE (dixon76710 @ Jan 16 2007, 06:08 PM)
Wow! is that you talking or does somebody got their hand up your #####, manipulating the movements of your mouth? And my criticism was directed at Jane Smiley and Rosie Odonnell. Smiley probably doesnt even have the slightest idea what a neocon is other than who has been branded as one by the media. And kind of silly to blame the war on the Neocons when it was Congress who approved it. MARK
Congress and the American people were fed a deliberate package of lies by the Bush administration and the only people who don't know that are the ones who don't want to know it. Unlike you, most Americans as well as most members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, have the intellectual capacity to revise their opinions when presented with clear evidence of the truth. Knowing what we and they now know, there is no way Bush could get the approval of Congress for his insane war for profit.
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 16 2007, 06:17 PM)
Congress and the American people were fed a deliberate package of lies by the Bush administration and the only people who don't know that are the ones who don't want to know it. Unlike you, most Americans as well as most members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, have the intellectual capacity to revise their opinions when presented with clear evidence of the truth. Knowing what we and they now know, there is no way Bush could get the approval of Congress for his insane war for profit.
The facts reveal otherwise. 9/13/2001 the American people were ready for war against Saddam before anyone in the Bush administration had even mentioned saddam. You can look at the first 9 months of the administration and see its absence of even any discussion of saddam. BEFORE THEN-
QUOTE
"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."
Clinton 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
Madeline Albright 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others 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."
Nancy Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright 1999
Clinton 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
Madeline Albright 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others 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."
Nancy Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright 1999
It wasnt the Bush administration feeding us anything that we hadnt already eaten. Clinton and the Democrats, the UN, british, russian and french intelligence, all told us the same thing before the Bush administration said a word. MARK
QUOTE (dixon76710 @ Jan 17 2007, 01:51 AM)
The facts reveal otherwise. 9/13/2001 the American people were ready for war against Saddam before anyone in the Bush administration had even mentioned saddam. You can look at the first 9 months of the administration and see its absence of even any discussion of saddam. BEFORE THEN-
It wasnt the Bush administration feeding us anything that we hadnt already eaten. Clinton and the Democrats, the UN, british, russian and french intelligence, all told us the same thing before the Bush administration said a word. MARK
It wasnt the Bush administration feeding us anything that we hadnt already eaten. Clinton and the Democrats, the UN, british, russian and french intelligence, all told us the same thing before the Bush administration said a word. MARK
You have already seen the evidence, and you have chosen to ignore it. So the following is not for you, Mark. It's for those with open minds.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 16 2007, 10:18 PM)
You have already seen the evidence, and you have chosen to ignore it. So the following is not for you, Mark. It's for those with open minds.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm
Based upon some of your conclusions, its no surprise that you consider a screeching rant from Jane Smiley to be "evidence". MARK
Obviously you chose to ignore this evidence:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm
After you have seen all 87 minutes of this video, why don't you come back and give us some more distorted spin about why you think these dozens of experts are all wrong?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm
After you have seen all 87 minutes of this video, why don't you come back and give us some more distorted spin about why you think these dozens of experts are all wrong?
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 17 2007, 01:36 PM)
Obviously you chose to ignore this evidence:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm
After you have seen all 87 minutes of this video, why don't you come back and give us some more distorted spin about why you think these dozens of experts are all wrong?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm
After you have seen all 87 minutes of this video, why don't you come back and give us some more distorted spin about why you think these dozens of experts are all wrong?
LOLOLOL! You said-
QUOTE
You have already seen the evidence,... So the following is not for you
Why would I need an 87 minute video, thats not for me, if I "have already seen the evidence"?
MARK
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 17 2007, 06:22 PM)
Ok, Ill play, "Lies That Led to War" looks on point. Takes me to
"The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq
Report prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman"
Dead link lets try "Lies of Our Times"
QUOTE
even when he didn't literally say so -- and Fred Kaplan of Slate points out that the President was generally quite precise in the imprecision of his words --
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/.../06/06_526.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/.../06/06_526.html
"precise in the imprecision" Well, if you consider imprecision to be a lie??? Can you pick out a better example? Or is that as good as it gets in there? MARK
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 17 2007, 12:17 AM)
Congress and the American people were fed a deliberate package of lies by the Bush administration and the only people who don't know that are the ones who don't want to know it. Unlike you, most Americans as well as most members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, have the intellectual capacity to revise their opinions when presented with clear evidence of the truth. Knowing what we and they now know, there is no way Bush could get the approval of Congress for his insane war for profit.
The American public is no longer buying Bush's lies. His approval for war keeps on sliding toward absolute zero, he has squandered all his political capital, he has no credibilty. Neo-cons are blaming his incompetence for the failure in Iraq. True conservatives and Republicans are abandoning him in an effort to save their party. Most Iraqis are supporting the insurgency and think it is OK to shoot Americans. The people and the government want the invaders out of their country.
"Without much support from the Iraqi government and the groups that underpin it, the new US initiative to stave off defeat in the Iraq war is likely doomed to fail."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011607a.html
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 18 2007, 01:36 AM)
"Without much support from the Iraqi government and the groups that underpin it, the new US initiative to stave off defeat in the Iraq war is likely doomed to fail."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011607a.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011607a.html
???? Victory doesnt rely upon our perpetual occupation. MARK
Hi Mark
I'll weigh in. Dubyah's popularity is the least of his concerns. That is what drives the twits absolutely bonkers.
I truly do have to admire the man. He has absolutely set the course, and resolutely stood by his convictions and principles.
Yeah, maybe he is a little too optimistic. I like that though. Yeah, maybe Dubyah is a little too idealistic. I sorta' like that too come to think of it. He always tells it like he honestly sees it to the American people, and the liars and ignoramuses are simply not equipped to deal with a straight-spoken man.
You just might recall the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The newsies kept repeating their catch-phrase. "Shock and Awe". They had all their cameras lined up to watch the biggest fireworks display since Hiroshima....just to "sell newspapers"...(get more advertising revenue). They were thouroughly pithhed off when they had only a few fireworks to film. Remember?
...Well they have simply never forgiven Dubyah for not giving them a show. He could have sent in the BUFFS and carpet bombed Bagdad, but instead demonstrated a very personal sense of restraint and decency. He has demonstrated the same sense of decency ever since. He has given an entire people an opportunity to build a decent life for themselves. I still hope they embrace that opportunity and lay down their ancient hatreds, though truthfully I am often discouraged in that regard...
Then I look back on history. We stayed the course in Europe for fifty years...no Iron curtain today.
We stayed the course in Korea....and the people in the south have a pretty decent life.
We only had to stay the course in Japan for ten years...they are fast learners and hard workers.
Please, Mark, keep in mind that many of the twits on this board simply hate us and envy us. All the filth they spew boils right down to their own self hatred and incompetence in the real world.
OK, so where do we find a man to replace Dubyah?(Hah, sometimes I think the only reason they haven't tried to end HIM is that Mr. Cheny would be sworn into the Presidency...and he is not nearly so patient with fools and would-be enemies.)
So our country will do fine so long as we have leadership like we have now...so where do we go for leadership "post-Dubyah"?
We certainly don't want the tyrant on the white horse. He might kill off enough of our our enemies to shut them up, but what happens to our country in the process?
On the other hand, what will we have to endure should we elect the looser wimp coward our local twits want?
I know there are many fine men in our country who could do the job as President. My prayer is that one steps forward pretty soon to let the country get to know him.
Best regards
KenBean
I'll weigh in. Dubyah's popularity is the least of his concerns. That is what drives the twits absolutely bonkers.
I truly do have to admire the man. He has absolutely set the course, and resolutely stood by his convictions and principles.
Yeah, maybe he is a little too optimistic. I like that though. Yeah, maybe Dubyah is a little too idealistic. I sorta' like that too come to think of it. He always tells it like he honestly sees it to the American people, and the liars and ignoramuses are simply not equipped to deal with a straight-spoken man.
You just might recall the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The newsies kept repeating their catch-phrase. "Shock and Awe". They had all their cameras lined up to watch the biggest fireworks display since Hiroshima....just to "sell newspapers"...(get more advertising revenue). They were thouroughly pithhed off when they had only a few fireworks to film. Remember?
...Well they have simply never forgiven Dubyah for not giving them a show. He could have sent in the BUFFS and carpet bombed Bagdad, but instead demonstrated a very personal sense of restraint and decency. He has demonstrated the same sense of decency ever since. He has given an entire people an opportunity to build a decent life for themselves. I still hope they embrace that opportunity and lay down their ancient hatreds, though truthfully I am often discouraged in that regard...
Then I look back on history. We stayed the course in Europe for fifty years...no Iron curtain today.
We stayed the course in Korea....and the people in the south have a pretty decent life.
We only had to stay the course in Japan for ten years...they are fast learners and hard workers.
Please, Mark, keep in mind that many of the twits on this board simply hate us and envy us. All the filth they spew boils right down to their own self hatred and incompetence in the real world.
OK, so where do we find a man to replace Dubyah?(Hah, sometimes I think the only reason they haven't tried to end HIM is that Mr. Cheny would be sworn into the Presidency...and he is not nearly so patient with fools and would-be enemies.)
So our country will do fine so long as we have leadership like we have now...so where do we go for leadership "post-Dubyah"?
We certainly don't want the tyrant on the white horse. He might kill off enough of our our enemies to shut them up, but what happens to our country in the process?
On the other hand, what will we have to endure should we elect the looser wimp coward our local twits want?
I know there are many fine men in our country who could do the job as President. My prayer is that one steps forward pretty soon to let the country get to know him.
Best regards
KenBean
QUOTE (dixon76710 @ Jan 18 2007, 12:15 PM)
???? Victory doesnt rely upon our perpetual occupation. MARK
If that's true, the US should declare victory and get the h#ll out of Iraq. Killing Saddam should be quite enough "mission accomplished." Bush is so stupid and so dishonest he thinks he can salvage his ruined legacy and failed policies by putting more Americans at risk.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/01/sw..._iraq.html#more
...well my point is made again.
Bean
Bean
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 18 2007, 07:36 AM)
The American public is no longer buying Bush's lies. His approval for war keeps on sliding toward absolute zero, he has squandered all his political capital, he has no credibilty. Neo-cons are blaming his incompetence for the failure in Iraq. True conservatives and Republicans are abandoning him in an effort to save their party. Most Iraqis are supporting the insurgency and think it is OK to shoot Americans. The people and the government want the invaders out of their country.
"Without much support from the Iraqi government and the groups that underpin it, the new US initiative to stave off defeat in the Iraq war is likely doomed to fail."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011607a.html
"Without much support from the Iraqi government and the groups that underpin it, the new US initiative to stave off defeat in the Iraq war is likely doomed to fail."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/011607a.html
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/sto...15/daily19.html
R2D2 was a kinda' smart robot.
D2D2 is so stupid his mother didn't know whether to name him...or flush the evidence of her lack of discretion in 'fork'-mates. (sorry guys I just got tired of libel/slander)
Bean
D2D2 is so stupid his mother didn't know whether to name him...or flush the evidence of her lack of discretion in 'fork'-mates.
(sorry guys I just got tired of libel/slander)Bean
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 18 2007, 10:39 AM)
If that's true, the US should declare victory and get the h#ll out of Iraq. Killing Saddam should be quite enough "mission accomplished." Bush is so stupid and so dishonest he thinks he can salvage his ruined legacy and failed policies by putting more Americans at risk.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/01/sw..._iraq.html#more
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/01/sw..._iraq.html#more
Victory would become pointless if Saddam were to be replaced with something worse. MARK
QUOTE (dixon76710 @ Jan 19 2007, 12:40 AM)
Victory would become pointless if Saddam were to be replaced with something worse. MARK
I won't argue with that. But who or what could be worse than Saddam? Religious extremists like some Iranians that Saddam hated? Religious extremists like the ones that attacked us on 9/11?
And you shouldn't think I'm opposed to an honorable and successful conclusion to the Iraq war. I just don't see how that is possible given Bush's dismal record of failures.
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 18 2007, 08:02 PM)
I won't argue with that. But who or what could be worse than Saddam? Religious extremists like some Iranians that Saddam hated? Religious extremists like the ones that attacked us on 9/11?
And you shouldn't think I'm opposed to an honorable and successful conclusion to the Iraq war. I just don't see how that is possible given Bush's dismal record of failures.
And you shouldn't think I'm opposed to an honorable and successful conclusion to the Iraq war. I just don't see how that is possible given Bush's dismal record of failures.
I think Baathist, Shiite or Sunni fundamentalist all have the potential to be worse. Especially if they gain their authority by force from the majority of the people. MARK
"The proposed solution is to send more troops and it won't work. The additional 21,000 troops is too little and too late. This administration's handling of the war has been characterized by deceit, mismanagement and a shocking failure to understand the social and political forces that influence events in the middle east."
Former Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar
"...a fool's errand." Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey
http://cbs11tv.com/national/topstories_story_018175215.html
Former Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar
"...a fool's errand." Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey
http://cbs11tv.com/national/topstories_story_018175215.html
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 19 2007, 07:07 PM)
"The proposed solution is to send more troops and it won't work. The additional 21,000 troops is too little and too late. This administration's handling of the war has been characterized by deceit, mismanagement and a shocking failure to understand the social and political forces that influence events in the middle east."
Former Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar
"...a fool's errand." Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey
http://cbs11tv.com/national/topstories_story_018175215.html
Former Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar
"...a fool's errand." Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey
http://cbs11tv.com/national/topstories_story_018175215.html
Time will tell. Do you think you would be able to handle the disappointment if it were to succeed?
MARK
QUOTE (dixon76710 @ Jan 20 2007, 03:21 AM)
Time will tell. Do you think you would be able to handle the disappointment if it were to succeed?
MARK
MARK
How much time will it take to tell? Bush is already operating on borrowed time. I would be surprised but not disappointed if the escalation succeeds in ending the cycle of violence. It is far more probable that Bush's same old failed policies will only create more terrorists and spread more instability throughout the middle east. The word disappointment does not begin to describe the waste, fraud and abuse that has occurred as well as the insane cost in lives, dollars and American prestige and influence worldwide.
D2D2 I hate to disappoint you...but Mr. Bush certainly is not operating on "borrowed time".
Two Years is a loooooong time.
If he were the dummy OR the ogre you seem to think he is...he could set a stage where ANY successor would be forced to win the war on jihadists or be lynched.
I don't know if you are an American citizen or not...or what age, but what I do know is that if we can't find a way to turn the corner in this war by engaging partners of good will, Mr. Bush's successor will have very little option except to re-instate a military draft here.
bean
Two Years is a loooooong time.
If he were the dummy OR the ogre you seem to think he is...he could set a stage where ANY successor would be forced to win the war on jihadists or be lynched.
I don't know if you are an American citizen or not...or what age, but what I do know is that if we can't find a way to turn the corner in this war by engaging partners of good will, Mr. Bush's successor will have very little option except to re-instate a military draft here.
bean
Bush has set the stage for his successors. He is determined to dump the disaster he created on the next president. The large number of candidates for that job seems a remarkable indication that they believe jihadists are not the deadly threat the neoconmen have said they are.
"...our meddling in the middle east has only intensified strife and conflict. American tax dollars have militarized the entire region." Republican Rep. Ron Paul
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10373
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=10375
"...our meddling in the middle east has only intensified strife and conflict. American tax dollars have militarized the entire region." Republican Rep. Ron Paul
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10373
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=10375
D21D2 please stop telling me you are right because your mommy says you are.
(that is exactly what you mean with the "twit-links")
Bean
(that is exactly what you mean with the "twit-links")
Bean
QUOTE (d2d2 @ Jan 23 2007, 07:41 PM)
Bush has set the stage for his successors. He is determined to dump the disaster he created on the next president. The large number of candidates for that job seems a remarkable indication that they believe jihadists are not the deadly threat the neoconmen have said they are.
"...our meddling in the middle east has only intensified strife and conflict. American tax dollars have militarized the entire region." Republican Rep. Ron Paul
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10373
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=10375
"...our meddling in the middle east has only intensified strife and conflict. American tax dollars have militarized the entire region." Republican Rep. Ron Paul
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10373
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=10375
Congress should only approve Bush's "give war a chance" escalation if he agrees to resign in nine months when the "surge" hasn't worked.
"...Bush exhortations about human freedom...are galling to many in the world who see Bush himself as the world's most notorious autocrat violating international law at his personal whim and overriding the constitutional liberties of Americans..."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/012407.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/012407a.html
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.