http://tellusthemission.org/
The next time you hear RUDY or any of his sycophants tell you only THEY can keep you safe, remind them of this..
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/30/terror.report/
I am tired of all of our brave young men and women coming home in body bags. I am tired of all the money that is being spent on this God-awful war. I am tired of Bush telling us we can still achieve victory, when clearly we can not.
I'll stop rehashing this when out troops stop coming home in bodybags and we are out of the war, but not one minute before. All of those who voted for Bush have themselves to thank for this mess. You can't stand to have the facts thrown in your face, that's on you. Deal with it. Those of us who knew a long time ago that this war was wrong get no satisfaction from being right.
Full Version: Happy "Mission Accomplished" Day!
Because there are many here who suffer from SUCCESSINIRAQNOPHOBIA and BDS, I'm going to break this down into two parts.
Part one will deal with President Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech. I'm going to put it into the proper context.
The aircraft carrirer, USS Abraham Lincoln, was part of the initial campaign to take Baghdad. They were first ordered to sea in January 2002 as part of Operation Enduring Freedom (for those who don't know, that's the Afghanistan theatre of the GWOT) and were then ordered into the Persian Gulf in January, 2003 for the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
When the President made his speech on the deck, the banner "Mission Accomplished" was shown in the background. Many think this was just a photo-op for the President, when, in all actuality, it was placed there by the men and women who serve on the Abraham Lincoln while on the way home. It was placed there after they accomplished their mission of flying 16,000+ sorties over Iraq. They were on their way home from the Persian Gulf in May of 2003, just a few miles away from San Diego, when President Bush made his speech
So, when you Leftists make fun of the President, and the "mission accomplished" speech, you are actually making fun of the thousands of men and women on that ship who proudly and successfully accomplished their mission they were set out to do as part of Operation Iraqi Freeedom.
It was Gen. Tommy Franks idea to place the President in front of that banner. In his book "American Soldier" he said he wanted to do that for the troops to show recognition of their success. The troops were very proud of this. But, for some unknown, psychologically deranged reason, the Left wasn't.
Now let's look at his speech in context (I know that's a difficult thing for you Leftists to do, but let's try anyway, OK?)
Here it is in it's entirety.
In that speech the President said:
and
So you see, the President didn't lie about anything. He was completely honest and truthful in telling everyone that we have a long struggle ahead. So what is it, exactly, you Leftists are complaining about?
Stay tuned for Part 2, when I rip apart the completely inaccurate and biased CNN article concerning global terrorism. I will correctly interpret the report that was given by the State Department.
Part one will deal with President Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech. I'm going to put it into the proper context.
The aircraft carrirer, USS Abraham Lincoln, was part of the initial campaign to take Baghdad. They were first ordered to sea in January 2002 as part of Operation Enduring Freedom (for those who don't know, that's the Afghanistan theatre of the GWOT) and were then ordered into the Persian Gulf in January, 2003 for the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
When the President made his speech on the deck, the banner "Mission Accomplished" was shown in the background. Many think this was just a photo-op for the President, when, in all actuality, it was placed there by the men and women who serve on the Abraham Lincoln while on the way home. It was placed there after they accomplished their mission of flying 16,000+ sorties over Iraq. They were on their way home from the Persian Gulf in May of 2003, just a few miles away from San Diego, when President Bush made his speech
So, when you Leftists make fun of the President, and the "mission accomplished" speech, you are actually making fun of the thousands of men and women on that ship who proudly and successfully accomplished their mission they were set out to do as part of Operation Iraqi Freeedom.
It was Gen. Tommy Franks idea to place the President in front of that banner. In his book "American Soldier" he said he wanted to do that for the troops to show recognition of their success. The troops were very proud of this. But, for some unknown, psychologically deranged reason, the Left wasn't.
Now let's look at his speech in context (I know that's a difficult thing for you Leftists to do, but let's try anyway, OK?)
Here it is in it's entirety.
In that speech the President said:
QUOTE
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.
and
QUOTE
Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. (Applause.)
The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.
The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.
So you see, the President didn't lie about anything. He was completely honest and truthful in telling everyone that we have a long struggle ahead. So what is it, exactly, you Leftists are complaining about?
Stay tuned for Part 2, when I rip apart the completely inaccurate and biased CNN article concerning global terrorism. I will correctly interpret the report that was given by the State Department.
QUOTE (KenRI @ May 1 2007, 02:55 PM) 
Because there are many here who suffer from SUCCESSINIRAQNOPHOBIA and BDS, I'm going to break this down into two parts.
Part one will deal with President Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech. I'm going to put it into the proper context.
The aircraft carrirer, USS Abraham Lincoln, was part of the initial campaign to take Baghdad. They were first ordered to sea in January 2002 as part of Operation Enduring Freedom (for those who don't know, that's the Afghanistan theatre of the GWOT) and were then ordered into the Persian Gulf in January, 2003 for the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
When the President made his speech on the deck, the banner "Mission Accomplished" was shown in the background. Many think this was just a photo-op for the President, when, in all actuality, it was placed there by the men and women who serve on the Abraham Lincoln while on the way home. It was placed there after they accomplished their mission of flying 16,000+ sorties over Iraq. They were on their way home from the Persian Gulf in May of 2003, just a few miles away from San Diego, when President Bush made his speech
So, when you Leftists make fun of the President, and the "mission accomplished" speech, you are actually making fun of the thousands of men and women on that ship who proudly and successfully accomplished their mission they were set out to do as part of Operation Iraqi Freeedom.
It was Gen. Tommy Franks idea to place the President in front of that banner. In his book "American Soldier" he said he wanted to do that for the troops to show recognition of their success. The troops were very proud of this. But, for some unknown, psychologically deranged reason, the Left wasn't.
Now let's look at his speech in context (I know that's a difficult thing for you Leftists to do, but let's try anyway, OK?)
Here it is in it's entirety.
In that speech the President said:
and
So you see, the President didn't lie about anything. He was completely honest and truthful in telling everyone that we have a long struggle ahead. So what is it, exactly, you Leftists are complaining about?
Stay tuned for Part 2, when I rip apart the completely inaccurate and biased CNN article concerning global terrorism. I will correctly interpret the report that was given by the State Department.
Part one will deal with President Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech. I'm going to put it into the proper context.
The aircraft carrirer, USS Abraham Lincoln, was part of the initial campaign to take Baghdad. They were first ordered to sea in January 2002 as part of Operation Enduring Freedom (for those who don't know, that's the Afghanistan theatre of the GWOT) and were then ordered into the Persian Gulf in January, 2003 for the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
When the President made his speech on the deck, the banner "Mission Accomplished" was shown in the background. Many think this was just a photo-op for the President, when, in all actuality, it was placed there by the men and women who serve on the Abraham Lincoln while on the way home. It was placed there after they accomplished their mission of flying 16,000+ sorties over Iraq. They were on their way home from the Persian Gulf in May of 2003, just a few miles away from San Diego, when President Bush made his speech
So, when you Leftists make fun of the President, and the "mission accomplished" speech, you are actually making fun of the thousands of men and women on that ship who proudly and successfully accomplished their mission they were set out to do as part of Operation Iraqi Freeedom.
It was Gen. Tommy Franks idea to place the President in front of that banner. In his book "American Soldier" he said he wanted to do that for the troops to show recognition of their success. The troops were very proud of this. But, for some unknown, psychologically deranged reason, the Left wasn't.
Now let's look at his speech in context (I know that's a difficult thing for you Leftists to do, but let's try anyway, OK?)
Here it is in it's entirety.
In that speech the President said:
and
So you see, the President didn't lie about anything. He was completely honest and truthful in telling everyone that we have a long struggle ahead. So what is it, exactly, you Leftists are complaining about?
Stay tuned for Part 2, when I rip apart the completely inaccurate and biased CNN article concerning global terrorism. I will correctly interpret the report that was given by the State Department.
The liar also said "in the battle for Iraq, America and her allies have prevailed." A long struggle ahead...well that might actually be one of the few things that azzhole hasn't lied about. Perpetual War is what they're after. Don't shrink when they call on you to put your butt on the line for it either.
You amaze me KenRIi...you swallow this bs like it's Mother's Milk. Are you really that afraid?
QUOTE (LooseCannon @ May 2 2007, 09:31 AM)
The liar also said "in the battle for Iraq, America and her allies have prevailed." From DAS- SCRIPT of failure...
A long struggle ahead...well that might actually be one of the few things that azzhole hasn't lied about. Perpetual War is what they're after. Don't shrink when they call on you to put your butt on the line for it either.
Have No fear " we be lost", only those with the psyche of Failure that is that virtuous ship of "De-Nile" floating on that supended mindset, in the good ship "Das-Script to failure", will carry that ball to other guy's goal line...
CNN Poll On line Poll March 2007,
Do you personally know anyone who has served in Iraq and or Afghanistan?
78%-- NO
18%-- YES
4%-- No Answer/Do Not know.
Guess who here with the loudest voices, are in which group, my childreens...
On affaiblit toujours tout ce qu'on exagere. ( We always weaken whatever we exaggerate. eh Girls!)
You amaze me KenRIi...you swallow this bs like it's Mother's Milk. Are you really that afraid?
The greatest threat of all, that mindset embedded in this narcissistic psyche to prefer failure, which is the very essences of this "De-Nile and Das Script," would be a good answer for me, anyways.
A long struggle ahead...well that might actually be one of the few things that azzhole hasn't lied about. Perpetual War is what they're after. Don't shrink when they call on you to put your butt on the line for it either.
QUOTE
Have No fear " we be lost", only those with the psyche of Failure that is that virtuous ship of "De-Nile" floating on that supended mindset, in the good ship "Das-Script to failure", will carry that ball to other guy's goal line...
CNN Poll On line Poll March 2007,
Do you personally know anyone who has served in Iraq and or Afghanistan?
78%-- NO
18%-- YES
4%-- No Answer/Do Not know.
Guess who here with the loudest voices, are in which group, my childreens...
On affaiblit toujours tout ce qu'on exagere. ( We always weaken whatever we exaggerate. eh Girls!)
You amaze me KenRIi...you swallow this bs like it's Mother's Milk. Are you really that afraid?
The greatest threat of all, that mindset embedded in this narcissistic psyche to prefer failure, which is the very essences of this "De-Nile and Das Script," would be a good answer for me, anyways.
QUOTE (MrLeft @ May 1 2007, 12:26 PM)
I am tired of all of our brave young men and women coming home in body bags. I am tired of all the money that is being spent on this God-awful war. I am tired of Bush telling us we can still achieve victory, when clearly we can not.
You must be REALLY tired. What I am REALLY tired of is the terrorist appeasers like you MrLeft. The Fn cowards that just write off 911 as an aberration. Over 3000 murdered on 911. 3000 AMERICANS. AN ATTACK ON OUR SOIL. And you b!tch and moan about a war effort to prevent this type of carnage again? Or worse??
And yet you have no problem with the fact that more people have been killed by illegal wetbacks on US soil within the the same period of those Americans killed to presreve our freedoms. People like you disgust me. You don't have a Fn clue. You are a hostage to your emotions.
QUOTE (MrLeft @ May 1 2007, 12:26 PM)
http://tellusthemission.org/
The next time you hear RUDY or any of his sycophants tell you only THEY can keep you safe, remind them of this..
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/30/terror.report/
The next time you hear RUDY or any of his sycophants tell you only THEY can keep you safe, remind them of this..
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/30/terror.report/
I think the "you" refers to Americans. Terrorism is up 25% this year in the world and In America weve not had even one attack since 9/11. Could be they are learning that attacking anywhere but America is much better for their health. MARK
Part 2: The report on terrorism
The Liberal media says global terrorism has risen. What the Liberal media ignores are these little facts:
Terrorism in South Asia is down 10%, in Europe it's down 18%, and in South America down 54 %. In North America, there has been virtually none.
The reason the overall percentage is up is because of Iraq. Iraq has been declared the central front of the war on terror by both the President and Al Qaeda (just as we wanted)--so it only makes common sense as to why the terrorist attacks have increased in that area...because that's where most of the fighting is occuring, and that's where Al Qaeda is tied down.
The brilliant Bush doctrine of "we fight them over there" is obviously working and has shown undeniable progress.
Look at the numbers yourself. They do not lie (like Leftists, Liberals, and the other defeatists do.) http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/
The Liberal media says global terrorism has risen. What the Liberal media ignores are these little facts:
Terrorism in South Asia is down 10%, in Europe it's down 18%, and in South America down 54 %. In North America, there has been virtually none.
The reason the overall percentage is up is because of Iraq. Iraq has been declared the central front of the war on terror by both the President and Al Qaeda (just as we wanted)--so it only makes common sense as to why the terrorist attacks have increased in that area...because that's where most of the fighting is occuring, and that's where Al Qaeda is tied down.
The brilliant Bush doctrine of "we fight them over there" is obviously working and has shown undeniable progress.
Look at the numbers yourself. They do not lie (like Leftists, Liberals, and the other defeatists do.) http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/
QUOTE (LooseCannon @ May 1 2007, 07:31 PM)
The liar also said "in the battle for Iraq, America and her allies have prevailed." A long struggle ahead...well that might actually be one of the few things that azzhole hasn't lied about. Perpetual War is what they're after. Don't shrink when they call on you to put your butt on the line for it either.
You amaze me KenRIi...you swallow this bs like it's Mother's Milk. Are you really that afraid?
You amaze me KenRIi...you swallow this bs like it's Mother's Milk. Are you really that afraid?
And, you totally amaze me, LooseCannon. All you can do is hurl more insults after being presented with the facts of the speech.
You not only amaze, but I'm confounded by your stupidity. I think it is you that is afraid or you would answer with facts, not more thrown feces, which indicates your lack of words (and facts)to do better.
Don't want to rattle your tight little cage that you live in, but do you notice that OBL hasn't been seen in TV............for years? And, that the terrorists are "verbalizing" that the latest terrorist leader (can't pronouce his name) isn't REALLY dead?
I think the facts are obvious. (Despite the liberal media and a$$holes such as yourself, we are winning the war), Suckuh.
If this mess has happened under everyone's noses and no one has been held accountable for it yet, then what is accountability anyway...?
The Dems have a major major obstacle to overcome...they have to work with the people that don't believe in working together...the reps have no such burden.
As far as I'm concerned this is simple...the reps made this mess...and they all rubber stamped it...and if left in power, they'll do it again.
Get rid of them. Period. All of them. In the upcoming months we'll see a bunch of reps, going against Bush(now that it doesn't matter) and saying things like "I never wanted to go along with this stuff from the beginning"
Like their voting records shouldn't be held against them.
(They vote in lockstep. We don't need large numbers of them ....we only need one, they all seem to have the same mind anyway.)
But of course they should be. And why shouldn't they be? Had they any integrity they'd quit themselves for messing up so egregiously...that's if you believe this whole thing was a mistake.
I don't though. This couldn't have possibly been any more willful as far as I'm concerned. This 'venture' has made certain people lots and lots of money, and the Pentagon and others in the government have always wanted to further establish our military presence in the Middle East. This allows for that.
What some seem to not get though, is that as long as we are over there, there'll be people unhappy about it, and bombing, blowing up, kidnapping beheading and otherwise acting out over it.
I don't really hold the dems responsible for continually getting out maneuvered by the reps...they want to take the high road...they're trying to lead by example.
I don't blame them...I blame the villians in this drama. We know who they are.
What's the solution? Get out.
Just get out! And let's take our civilians and our mercenaries with us.
Bush and his people never planned on leaving...this is all a smokescreen...that's why they built PERMANENT BASES there...and as long as they(we ) are there, there'll be problems with it.
All this handwringing is just an act...they have no intentions of leaving that country...how many times now has Bush changed the mission?
The Dems have a major major obstacle to overcome...they have to work with the people that don't believe in working together...the reps have no such burden.
As far as I'm concerned this is simple...the reps made this mess...and they all rubber stamped it...and if left in power, they'll do it again.
Get rid of them. Period. All of them. In the upcoming months we'll see a bunch of reps, going against Bush(now that it doesn't matter) and saying things like "I never wanted to go along with this stuff from the beginning"
Like their voting records shouldn't be held against them.
(They vote in lockstep. We don't need large numbers of them ....we only need one, they all seem to have the same mind anyway.)
But of course they should be. And why shouldn't they be? Had they any integrity they'd quit themselves for messing up so egregiously...that's if you believe this whole thing was a mistake.
I don't though. This couldn't have possibly been any more willful as far as I'm concerned. This 'venture' has made certain people lots and lots of money, and the Pentagon and others in the government have always wanted to further establish our military presence in the Middle East. This allows for that.
What some seem to not get though, is that as long as we are over there, there'll be people unhappy about it, and bombing, blowing up, kidnapping beheading and otherwise acting out over it.
I don't really hold the dems responsible for continually getting out maneuvered by the reps...they want to take the high road...they're trying to lead by example.
I don't blame them...I blame the villians in this drama. We know who they are.
What's the solution? Get out.
Just get out! And let's take our civilians and our mercenaries with us.
Bush and his people never planned on leaving...this is all a smokescreen...that's why they built PERMANENT BASES there...and as long as they(we ) are there, there'll be problems with it.
All this handwringing is just an act...they have no intentions of leaving that country...how many times now has Bush changed the mission?
QUOTE (Nomad @ May 1 2007, 10:40 PM)
You must be REALLY tired. What I am REALLY tired of is the terrorist appeasers like you MrLeft. The Fn cowards that just write off 911 as an aberration. Over 3000 murdered on 911. 3000 AMERICANS. AN ATTACK ON OUR SOIL. And you b!tch and moan about a war effort to prevent this type of carnage again? Or worse??
And yet you have no problem with the fact that more people have been killed by illegal wetbacks on US soil within the the same period of those Americans killed to presreve our freedoms. People like you disgust me. You don't have a Fn clue. You are a hostage to your emotions.
And yet you have no problem with the fact that more people have been killed by illegal wetbacks on US soil within the the same period of those Americans killed to presreve our freedoms. People like you disgust me. You don't have a Fn clue. You are a hostage to your emotions.
Name me one Iraqi that was involved in the 9-11 attack? Most of those men on the planes were from Saudi Arabia. Why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia, doofus?
Illegal wetbacks? You fuggin moronic racist!
How many of these immigrants (legal or illegal) cleaned your toilets, mowed your lawn or colored your fingernails? 
QUOTE (dixon76710 @ May 2 2007, 07:39 AM)
I think the "you" refers to Americans. Terrorism is up 25% this year in the world and In America weve not had even one attack since 9/11. Could be they are learning that attacking anywhere but America is much better for their health. MARK
And the reason terrorism is up 25%? Because we invaded a country we're not supposed to. Thanks for proving my point.
QUOTE (MrLeft @ May 2 2007, 07:28 PM)
Illegal wetbacks? You fuggin moronic racist! How many of these immigrants (legal or illegal) cleaned your toilets, mowed your lawn or colored your fingernails?
How many of these immigrants (legal or illegal) cleaned your toilets, mowed your lawn or colored your fingernails? And, what does this have to do with the point of illegal immigration? I clean my own toilets, mow my own lawn, but nails are done by VietNamese (who BTW learn the trade of nail work in order to come to this country legally). Am I to check their visas before allowing them to do so?
Don't get your point here.
Even if I hired these done, I should check the visas before paying the person who hired them? Kinduv like the diamond-thing, where you ask how these diamonds were shipped before you agree to buy them.
Tell.
QUOTE (SoloNav @ May 2 2007, 04:09 PM)
And, you totally amaze me, LooseCannon. All you can do is hurl more insults after being presented with the facts of the speech.
You not only amaze, but I'm confounded by your stupidity. I think it is you that is afraid or you would answer with facts, not more thrown feces, which indicates your lack of words (and facts)to do better.
Don't want to rattle your tight little cage that you live in, but do you notice that OBL hasn't been seen in TV............for years? And, that the terrorists are "verbalizing" that the latest terrorist leader (can't pronouce his name) isn't REALLY dead?
I think the facts are obvious. (Despite the liberal media and a$$holes such as yourself, we are winning the war), Suckuh.
You not only amaze, but I'm confounded by your stupidity. I think it is you that is afraid or you would answer with facts, not more thrown feces, which indicates your lack of words (and facts)to do better.
Don't want to rattle your tight little cage that you live in, but do you notice that OBL hasn't been seen in TV............for years? And, that the terrorists are "verbalizing" that the latest terrorist leader (can't pronouce his name) isn't REALLY dead?
I think the facts are obvious. (Despite the liberal media and a$$holes such as yourself, we are winning the war), Suckuh.
If we were winning the war it'd be over by now.
And if any of you tough talkers actually had to fight in it, it'd also be over...because you'd all decline.
One more thing about Bush's speech SoloNaive...he's either lying to you, or insulting your intelligence. Or both.
Your continued support of him suggests that maybe you don't deserve anything more than that anyway.
QUOTE (MrLeft @ May 3 2007, 09:28 AM)
Name me one Iraqi that was involved in the 9-11 attack? Most of those men on the planes were from Saudi Arabia. Why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia, doofus?
Illegal wetbacks? You fuggin moronic racist! How many of these immigrants (legal or illegal) cleaned your toilets, mowed your lawn or colored your fingernails?
And the reason terrorism is up 25%? Because we invaded a country we're not supposed to. Thanks for proving my point.
Illegal wetbacks? You fuggin moronic racist!
How many of these immigrants (legal or illegal) cleaned your toilets, mowed your lawn or colored your fingernails? And the reason terrorism is up 25%? Because we invaded a country we're not supposed to. Thanks for proving my point.
DAS SCRIPT----->
Why Illegal is NOT a RACE and why Immigrant is NOT a Race and why both Illegal and Immigrant is not a race, that is the question eh lefty?
We in your logic in this one legged chair you built. One, with a weight bearing, that "there were no Iraqi's involved in 9/11. The other, bearing weight, added for further weakness, being we INVADED a country WE WERE NO SUPPOSE TO are to suppose that is all that is needed to hold up to the reality and rational behind the real world of Terrorism we have today and will have even larger tomorrow?
Now we can all can sit in security and abstract comfort without a worry in this world by sitting on this one legged chair built of the two weakest branches of tree for sure.
That is if it were all that simplistic and narrow, in both context and construe as this one legged chair's construct would have us think could support the entire weight of Terrorism roots and it continued advancement.
Yet, the weight of the real world’s Terrorism, with its multi-variant complexities and realities is a far heavier burden than this weak one legged chair can bare in the vastly complex weight of this Terrorism.
Yet, is it by the account here the sole and only leg we hear that must bear the burden and heavy weight of this barbaric Terrorism that will hold us up in safety, comfort and prosperity for today and tomorrow.
IT IS NOT GOING AWAY Limp Biscuit, no matter what we do about Iraq, no matter how much you squeal, it is going to be there waiting for opportunity and hopefully you first.
The other missing leg of this chair of heavy burden not shown here as it is NOT in Das Script. Yet, well left unattended, by those one legged rationalist, IS IT TO LATE TO STOP IT OR TURN IT OFF there, lefty. Something DAS Script does not even make an effort to deal with at all.
One can NOT sit in this one legged chair singing a one note song with no melody for tomorrow and no idea how much danger it is in, not just for now, but for a lot more now's to come, without reasoning the reality of what is and not what should have been or they wish was to be.
Then again, if it is not in DAS Script, how would one know that ,eh lefty?
THIS blood vale of Terror has long been unleashed, IT AN'T GOING ANYWHERE BUT TO PLACE NEAR YOU, LEFTY, BUT, YOU KIND A KNOW THAT DON'T YOU?
Quoting the deluded MrLeft.....................
Wrong as ususal simpleton.................
MrLeft, do you still insist this is all Bushs' doing????? If so I just killed a knat on my screen that had more brains than you.........
QUOTE
As far as I'm concerned this is simple...the reps made this mess...and they all rubber stamped it...and if left in power, they'll do it again.
Get rid of them. Period. All of them. In the upcoming months we'll see a bunch of reps, going against Bush(now that it doesn't matter) and saying things like "I never wanted to go along with this stuff from the beginning"
Like their voting records shouldn't be held against them.
(They vote in lockstep. We don't need large numbers of them ....we only need one, they all seem to have the same mind anyway.)
Get rid of them. Period. All of them. In the upcoming months we'll see a bunch of reps, going against Bush(now that it doesn't matter) and saying things like "I never wanted to go along with this stuff from the beginning"
Like their voting records shouldn't be held against them.
(They vote in lockstep. We don't need large numbers of them ....we only need one, they all seem to have the same mind anyway.)
Wrong as ususal simpleton.................
QUOTE
Home > Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bayh (D-IN), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carper (D-DE), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clinton (D-NY), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kohl (D-WI), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nelson (D-NE), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bayh (D-IN), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carper (D-DE), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clinton (D-NY), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kohl (D-WI), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nelson (D-NE), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
MrLeft, do you still insist this is all Bushs' doing????? If so I just killed a knat on my screen that had more brains than you.........
QUOTE (LooseCannon @ May 2 2007, 09:32 PM)
If we were winning the war it'd be over by now.
And if any of you tough talkers actually had to fight in it, it'd also be over...because you'd all decline.
One more thing about Bush's speech SoloNaive...he's either lying to you, or insulting your intelligence. Or both.
Your continued support of him suggests that maybe you don't deserve anything more than that anyway.
And if any of you tough talkers actually had to fight in it, it'd also be over...because you'd all decline.
One more thing about Bush's speech SoloNaive...he's either lying to you, or insulting your intelligence. Or both.
Your continued support of him suggests that maybe you don't deserve anything more than that anyway.
Hey, Guy, there's a beginning, middle, and end to everything. Your first statement just doesn't make sense.
We're fighting an enemy that is not enclosed within borders, is everywhere (guerilla warfare, u know?). This isn't a simple, neat little job. Bush said it would/could go on for years. And, it is. I don't think we're EVER going to be free of terrorists. It's the future. To say we're not winning is a misnomer. We're most likely NEVER going to be WINNING in the old sense. That world is gone. The best we can do is make a good offense.
And, I think the fact that I mentioned (and which you glibly overlooked) speaks to that: OBL hasn't been seen in months (victory) and almost all of the AQ that rabid liberals (such as yourself) were complaining a few years about as not "being caught" are dead (victory), including the latest who name I can't pronounce.
I believe it your liberal websites, liberal media, etc. that have fed you and friends a line............of BS.
You guys can't admit the victories we've had or you'd have to ..........admit you've been WRONG for the past years since 1999. Your guys have to misreport the news to make it sound good.
That's the sign of defeat (in YOUR camp), not ours.
Great reply, Nomad.
Thanks for reminding the left of the true nature of their disinformation.
Do you think these guys are just young and have swallowed whatever their teachers/professors have fed them and are just too lazy to do anything other than watch the alphabet news?
I've wondered that.
BTW, the alphabet news has less than 10% audience, according to the last polls. So, I guess these guys are a part of the 10%?
The Terrorist Tool Kit
What does a jihadist take with him to Iraq? That question was recently posted on alrifdaws.org, (1) one of the myriad radical websites spreading Islamist ideas worldwide. Another user, "Terrorist 11," offered a lengthy response to the budding guerrilla. Key to a successful mission, he is told, are a pocket Koran, night vision goggles, shackles for use in abductions, a GPS system, and a video camera for casing targets and for supplying to well connected media sources.
This intriguing news comes courtesy of the Jamestown Foundation's weekly Terrorism Focus, (2) one of the Bad Guys blog's favorite sources of analysis on radical Islam. In the latest issue, the foundation's Erich Marquardt describes in depth what comprises the terrorist tool kit for Iraq. Terrorist 11 answered by posting a detailed Arabic document from Sheikh Yusuf al-Uyayri, a top al Qaeda strategist killed by Saudi authorities in 2003.
Al-Uyayri explains that jihadists are "multitype combat businessmen" who, as terrorist boy scouts, must be prepared for anything. "He must not be like a soldier in a regular army who operates in conjunction with others in terms of equipment and combat. He must view himself as the commander, the navigator, the shooter and the communications or reconnaissance man ... he must equip himself with everything that he needs and train on all combat tasks and appropriate weapons."
Al-Uyayri goes on to prescribe exactly the kind of urban warfare that's proved so tough to fight in Iraq: "The target should be easy and simple, and the security around it should be weak. The combat action against the target should be quick and not be based on a complex plan ..." The jihadists should be "like gas or air; present but not seen." The tactics lauded are the stuff of daily nightmares in Iraq: Preference to; suicide attacks, sniping, booby traps, improvised explosive devices, poisonings, kidnappings, and assassinations as if like gas and air.
Al-Uyayri's writings are but one of scores of training manuals for jihadists now out on the Internet. (3) What strikes analyst Marquardt is the ease with which terrorist groups can now obtain this kind of information–and the staying power of once obscure strategists like al-Uyayri. Hundreds of online forums and websites now act as classrooms and virtual training camps for aspiring jihadists–anywhere in the world. They're helping to guarantee that fanatics like Terrorist 11 and his budding jihadist will be with us for years to come.
There's no shortage of info on jihadists online. This week the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs holds a hearing on "The Internet: A Portal to Violent Extremism," (4) coinciding with the release of a George Washington University tated Radicalization." (5) Also worth checking out: the work of Rita Katz (6) and her SITE Institute. (7)
( 1 ) http://www.alfirdaws.org/vb/
( 2 ) http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/articl...ticleid=2373361
( 3 ) http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/articl...ticleid=2370176
( 4 ) http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/index.cfm?...l&HearingID=441
( 5 ) http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/
( 6 ) http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/0507/184a.html
( 7 ) http://www.siteinstitute.org/
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/badguys/...st_tool_kit.htm
What does a jihadist take with him to Iraq? That question was recently posted on alrifdaws.org, (1) one of the myriad radical websites spreading Islamist ideas worldwide. Another user, "Terrorist 11," offered a lengthy response to the budding guerrilla. Key to a successful mission, he is told, are a pocket Koran, night vision goggles, shackles for use in abductions, a GPS system, and a video camera for casing targets and for supplying to well connected media sources.
This intriguing news comes courtesy of the Jamestown Foundation's weekly Terrorism Focus, (2) one of the Bad Guys blog's favorite sources of analysis on radical Islam. In the latest issue, the foundation's Erich Marquardt describes in depth what comprises the terrorist tool kit for Iraq. Terrorist 11 answered by posting a detailed Arabic document from Sheikh Yusuf al-Uyayri, a top al Qaeda strategist killed by Saudi authorities in 2003.
Al-Uyayri explains that jihadists are "multitype combat businessmen" who, as terrorist boy scouts, must be prepared for anything. "He must not be like a soldier in a regular army who operates in conjunction with others in terms of equipment and combat. He must view himself as the commander, the navigator, the shooter and the communications or reconnaissance man ... he must equip himself with everything that he needs and train on all combat tasks and appropriate weapons."
Al-Uyayri goes on to prescribe exactly the kind of urban warfare that's proved so tough to fight in Iraq: "The target should be easy and simple, and the security around it should be weak. The combat action against the target should be quick and not be based on a complex plan ..." The jihadists should be "like gas or air; present but not seen." The tactics lauded are the stuff of daily nightmares in Iraq: Preference to; suicide attacks, sniping, booby traps, improvised explosive devices, poisonings, kidnappings, and assassinations as if like gas and air.
Al-Uyayri's writings are but one of scores of training manuals for jihadists now out on the Internet. (3) What strikes analyst Marquardt is the ease with which terrorist groups can now obtain this kind of information–and the staying power of once obscure strategists like al-Uyayri. Hundreds of online forums and websites now act as classrooms and virtual training camps for aspiring jihadists–anywhere in the world. They're helping to guarantee that fanatics like Terrorist 11 and his budding jihadist will be with us for years to come.
There's no shortage of info on jihadists online. This week the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs holds a hearing on "The Internet: A Portal to Violent Extremism," (4) coinciding with the release of a George Washington University tated Radicalization." (5) Also worth checking out: the work of Rita Katz (6) and her SITE Institute. (7)
( 1 ) http://www.alfirdaws.org/vb/
( 2 ) http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/articl...ticleid=2373361
( 3 ) http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/articl...ticleid=2370176
( 4 ) http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/index.cfm?...l&HearingID=441
( 5 ) http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/
( 6 ) http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/0507/184a.html
( 7 ) http://www.siteinstitute.org/
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/badguys/...st_tool_kit.htm
QUOTE
It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all. - Edward de Bono:
QUOTE
So, when you Leftists make fun of the President, and the "mission accomplished" speech, you are actually making fun of the thousands of men and women on that ship who proudly and successfully accomplished their mission they were set out to do as part of Operation Iraqi Freeedom.
That's like one of those Leftists of which you speak telling you that when you support the President in what he does, you are actually praising President Clinton for all he did to combat the threat of Al Qaeda.
It simply bears no relation to the truth.
President Bush set out that day on on PR stunt to claim victory, to make it seem as if the issue was resolved save for a little bit of clearing up. The "thousands of men and women on that ship" were a convenient backdrop for him
The phrase "mission accomplished" was even in the original draft of his speech. The only reason it didn't make the final speech is because Rumsfeld took it out thinking it was over the top.
But it didn't stop Bush reiterating it out loud a month later and leaving no doubt that he meant it as more than as a message for just the crew of that ship...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030605-1.html
QUOTE
We've seen a lot of fine sights, but there's no finer sight than to see the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America.
I am happy to see you, an so are the long-suffering people of Iraq. America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished
I am happy to see you, an so are the long-suffering people of Iraq. America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished
Bush was implying that Iraq was free of all tyranny, not that it was a case of simply replacing one with another. he had no idea what was coming next. He ignored all the warnings. He thought all the problems that remained were..
QUOTE
....... Baathist officials that are trying to hang on to power. There are still pockets of criminality
And what else did he have to say....?
QUOTE
As people who liberated Iraq, I know you're proud of what you have done. (Applause.) You see, the world is now learning what many of you have seen. They're learning about the mass graves, thousands of people just summarily executed. They're learning about the torture chambers. Because of you, a great evil has been ended. Because of you, the dignity of a great nation is being restored
Well people were still finding out about mass graves, summary executions and torture chambers that went on while the country was being run by Americans.
And what of the great evil that was ended? Was that replaced by a new one? Or did it exist in Iraq at the time the mission had been "accomplished".
Ms. Right:
That's the mission he was talking about that was accomplished. A dictator was removed.
The rest is history. Iraq is nowa democracy and a far better country than it ever was with schools and water and other of life's neccesities, which we built for them. (Notice I did not say rebuild. How can something THAT WAS NEVER THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE be rebuilt?)
But it's not done and it won't be for a while.
If Clinton actually DID go after Al Qaeda, then yes, I would have praised him too. Instead, what we got because of his negligence, was 9-11. (and let's not forget the first attempt in 1993..which he did nothing about either). Oh, yes, they were charged with a CRIME and put in jail..as CRIMINALS, instead of being punished for what they really did and what they really were...enemy combatants who committed an act of war on our country.
QUOTE
Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.
That's the mission he was talking about that was accomplished. A dictator was removed.
The rest is history. Iraq is nowa democracy and a far better country than it ever was with schools and water and other of life's neccesities, which we built for them. (Notice I did not say rebuild. How can something THAT WAS NEVER THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE be rebuilt?)
But it's not done and it won't be for a while.
If Clinton actually DID go after Al Qaeda, then yes, I would have praised him too. Instead, what we got because of his negligence, was 9-11. (and let's not forget the first attempt in 1993..which he did nothing about either). Oh, yes, they were charged with a CRIME and put in jail..as CRIMINALS, instead of being punished for what they really did and what they really were...enemy combatants who committed an act of war on our country.
QUOTE (Nomad @ May 2 2007, 10:00 PM)
Quoting the deluded MrLeft.....................
Wrong as ususal simpleton.................
MrLeft, do you still insist this is all Bushs' doing????? If so I just killed a knat on my screen that had more brains than you.........
Wrong as ususal simpleton.................
MrLeft, do you still insist this is all Bushs' doing????? If so I just killed a knat on my screen that had more brains than you.........
You mean this isn't Bush's doing? Really?
Really?
You'll say anything won't you? Just like your hero in DC...
If so, that tiny tick on the knat's head that you killed has more brains than you.
QUOTE (MrLeft @ May 3 2007, 09:02 PM)
You mean this isn't Bush's doing? Really?
Really?
You'll say anything won't you? Just like your hero in DC...
If so, that tiny tick on the knat's head that you killed has more brains than you.
Really?
You'll say anything won't you? Just like your hero in DC...
If so, that tiny tick on the knat's head that you killed has more brains than you.
This is too funny. First off there are no species of ticks that are smaller than knats. So your feeble attempt at a 3rd grade comeback is just as juvinile as your total intellect.
And, as I have said before, Bush is a Fn pussy. However compared to Gore or Kerry he has balls a mile wide.
Now lets do this again...................................
You said:
QUOTE
As far as I'm concerned this is simple...the reps made this mess...and they all rubber stamped it...and if left in power, they'll do it again.
Get rid of them. Period. All of them. In the upcoming months we'll see a bunch of reps, going against Bush(now that it doesn't matter) and saying things like "I never wanted to go along with this stuff from the beginning"
Like their voting records shouldn't be held against them.
(They vote in lockstep. We don't need large numbers of them ....we only need one, they all seem to have the same mind anyway.)
Get rid of them. Period. All of them. In the upcoming months we'll see a bunch of reps, going against Bush(now that it doesn't matter) and saying things like "I never wanted to go along with this stuff from the beginning"
Like their voting records shouldn't be held against them.
(They vote in lockstep. We don't need large numbers of them ....we only need one, they all seem to have the same mind anyway.)
And I proved you wrong with this:
QUOTE
Home > Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bayh (D-IN), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carper (D-DE), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clinton (D-NY), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kohl (D-WI), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nelson (D-NE), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bayh (D-IN), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carper (D-DE), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clinton (D-NY), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kohl (D-WI), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nelson (D-NE), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Now lets try to stay focused here MrLeft ( I realize this is alot to ask from one crippled by emotion ).
Please tell me how this was all Bushs' doing.
QUOTE (KenRI)
The rest is history. Iraq is nowa democracy and a far better country than it ever was with schools and water and other of life's neccesities, which we built for them.
Rebuilding in Iraq "almost impossible" under current conditions
US report blames Iraqis for failing reconstruction
Inspectors Find Rebuilt Projects Crumbling in Iraq
It all simply bears no relation to the truth and reality that is Iraq today and was Iraq before we went there and what it will be after we are gone.
If one takes even in a modest cursory review of the history of Iraq, before and under Saddam, one can see the roots of why he was so oppressive and brutal in his dealings with this unnatural cultural, ethnic and societal creation of the British among natural enemies whose animosities have been evident for centuries.
One can easily see that it all, this unnaturally union of nature enemies, points to the unquestionable truth and proof of what is the essences of this so called “Great Evil Version 2.0”. This new version of an ancient Great evil released today in Iraq, as an overt sectarian blood lust for ultimate supremacy, is and was, nothing more than what has been existing for centuries, only repressed and thus covertly existing all through out Iraq, before we went there and since the UK created this unholy forced alliance of natural and historical enemies.
Version 200.0 is merely Version 1.0 unbridled and unrepressed finally as a no longer repressed covert version gone overtly wild. It's repressed state was brutally subjugated in its capability and ability to rise up, as now, by Saddam's tyrannical and brutal slap downs. A process that every generation of Iraqi living knows works for them, thus they assume it as a tool as if it were as natural as the European’s thought Colonialism was.
What we see today in this culture of blood lust, vendetta, revenge and craving for power so long repressed but which is all the Iraqi culture has ever known. Is in a Iraq is a culture of many differences and few similarities which now rationalizes only brutal oppression is the natural course to take if some are to rule. Thus as we see evident daily brutality and unbridled barbary is all they know that works for them. They see rule to be nominally equated to strength, which in this culture is power. Whereby the only thing they know is power that is driven by repressed hatred and a unnatural comfort in using brutality and ruthlessness over all rivals at all costs and by any means necessary to achieve its ends.
The only real addition to this mix that was not there, is some 3,000 to 5,000 outsider, that came there because we went there. Some argue we are there not for why we said we went there. Others say this is true. Yet the convenient truth, which most assume is not a probable or likely reason, is we went there as a pre-calculated effective creation of a proxy front in this war on Terror, to conduct it over there verse over here.
Of course I am speaking of Al Qeada’s International Jihadism which came to Iraqi seeking to destroy all in Iraqi, if need be, if it would remotely help their cause and aim in destroying the west and its Arab “Ruling elite collaborators”. A battle that will continue irregardless of what we and or the Iraqi's do or do not do in Iraq.
The fallacy in all the Iraq debate, since March 2003, is it will not continue, no matter what we do and no matter where we are. That is simply an illusion of false hope and denied reality. Our enemies have not such false hopes and illusions, they will not stop to listen, yet we rationalize they will.
The reality is this Iraq situation is in fact, a multi-layered conflict, whereby, we, the Jihadist and other proxies, stand and fight our war on terror in Iraq, each using some element of these natural enemies in some way or the other against the other. While oddly, they use us, all, against ourselves, at the same time.
Meanwhile, at the same time, the natural enemies inside and outside of Iraq seeking proxies and alliance between these centuries old natural enemies fight for a reestablished equilibrium long denied by the UK and Saddam and as well sought by neighbors as much as the Iraqis. Old natural enemies who were reluctant brides in an unnatural union who were always destined to one day fight each other, unless brutally repressed by someone. This is blood bath which was always potentially there and one day destined to happen. It has always been waiting to be unleashed so a final victory would be established that sets the natural order of things as to who they are there in Iraq and the region, back to a point of some natural equilibrium that allows for those difference to be settled and differentiated once and for all.
Why does one not see that in Iraq is but another break down of unnatural Unions from long term natural enemies, like in the Soviet Empire, like in Tito's Yogoslavia, like in the Korea's and the Vietnams, they all were oppressed natural orders merely awaiting the opportunity to dis united and set themselves onto the natural path of their historical equilibrium.
Even today we see a resurgence of the natural order standing against the unnatural order, whereby, Sunni, Kurds and Shia, Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians and Turks are coming to a hard reality that the American and Jihadist war there, is just about over for the Americans and its allies. Thus, we see Sunni’s trying to expelled the Jihadist, they once shared their beds with as now only being in their way in this next more deadly phase of this realignment which they know is but a short time away. Thus, we see all parties jockeying for position via proxies and on their own in the coming fight that will make what we see today look like a mild version of a far more deadly version that has always been destined to happen.
Unfortunately we the evolved narcissist in the United States, Europe and developed Asia have rationalized that we can sit by like we did in Rwanda and Dalfour and let what happens happen, as long as we are not paying any price, like we do and did not in those places.
Yet, our narcissism of sightless foresight will kick into a major panic, when the first 5 million barrels of oil goes off line. It will escalate and frail into a mass hysteria, like the screams of a draining man, who should have worn a life preserve, but lack the foresight to assume he needed one, when the next 5 million barrels goes off line. Then, as famous actor once said, slightly differently, “we’ll be back.”
And the Beat Goes on….
If one takes even in a modest cursory review of the history of Iraq, before and under Saddam, one can see the roots of why he was so oppressive and brutal in his dealings with this unnatural cultural, ethnic and societal creation of the British among natural enemies whose animosities have been evident for centuries.
One can easily see that it all, this unnaturally union of nature enemies, points to the unquestionable truth and proof of what is the essences of this so called “Great Evil Version 2.0”. This new version of an ancient Great evil released today in Iraq, as an overt sectarian blood lust for ultimate supremacy, is and was, nothing more than what has been existing for centuries, only repressed and thus covertly existing all through out Iraq, before we went there and since the UK created this unholy forced alliance of natural and historical enemies.
Version 200.0 is merely Version 1.0 unbridled and unrepressed finally as a no longer repressed covert version gone overtly wild. It's repressed state was brutally subjugated in its capability and ability to rise up, as now, by Saddam's tyrannical and brutal slap downs. A process that every generation of Iraqi living knows works for them, thus they assume it as a tool as if it were as natural as the European’s thought Colonialism was.
What we see today in this culture of blood lust, vendetta, revenge and craving for power so long repressed but which is all the Iraqi culture has ever known. Is in a Iraq is a culture of many differences and few similarities which now rationalizes only brutal oppression is the natural course to take if some are to rule. Thus as we see evident daily brutality and unbridled barbary is all they know that works for them. They see rule to be nominally equated to strength, which in this culture is power. Whereby the only thing they know is power that is driven by repressed hatred and a unnatural comfort in using brutality and ruthlessness over all rivals at all costs and by any means necessary to achieve its ends.
The only real addition to this mix that was not there, is some 3,000 to 5,000 outsider, that came there because we went there. Some argue we are there not for why we said we went there. Others say this is true. Yet the convenient truth, which most assume is not a probable or likely reason, is we went there as a pre-calculated effective creation of a proxy front in this war on Terror, to conduct it over there verse over here.
Of course I am speaking of Al Qeada’s International Jihadism which came to Iraqi seeking to destroy all in Iraqi, if need be, if it would remotely help their cause and aim in destroying the west and its Arab “Ruling elite collaborators”. A battle that will continue irregardless of what we and or the Iraqi's do or do not do in Iraq.
The fallacy in all the Iraq debate, since March 2003, is it will not continue, no matter what we do and no matter where we are. That is simply an illusion of false hope and denied reality. Our enemies have not such false hopes and illusions, they will not stop to listen, yet we rationalize they will.
The reality is this Iraq situation is in fact, a multi-layered conflict, whereby, we, the Jihadist and other proxies, stand and fight our war on terror in Iraq, each using some element of these natural enemies in some way or the other against the other. While oddly, they use us, all, against ourselves, at the same time.
Meanwhile, at the same time, the natural enemies inside and outside of Iraq seeking proxies and alliance between these centuries old natural enemies fight for a reestablished equilibrium long denied by the UK and Saddam and as well sought by neighbors as much as the Iraqis. Old natural enemies who were reluctant brides in an unnatural union who were always destined to one day fight each other, unless brutally repressed by someone. This is blood bath which was always potentially there and one day destined to happen. It has always been waiting to be unleashed so a final victory would be established that sets the natural order of things as to who they are there in Iraq and the region, back to a point of some natural equilibrium that allows for those difference to be settled and differentiated once and for all.
Why does one not see that in Iraq is but another break down of unnatural Unions from long term natural enemies, like in the Soviet Empire, like in Tito's Yogoslavia, like in the Korea's and the Vietnams, they all were oppressed natural orders merely awaiting the opportunity to dis united and set themselves onto the natural path of their historical equilibrium.
Even today we see a resurgence of the natural order standing against the unnatural order, whereby, Sunni, Kurds and Shia, Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians and Turks are coming to a hard reality that the American and Jihadist war there, is just about over for the Americans and its allies. Thus, we see Sunni’s trying to expelled the Jihadist, they once shared their beds with as now only being in their way in this next more deadly phase of this realignment which they know is but a short time away. Thus, we see all parties jockeying for position via proxies and on their own in the coming fight that will make what we see today look like a mild version of a far more deadly version that has always been destined to happen.
Unfortunately we the evolved narcissist in the United States, Europe and developed Asia have rationalized that we can sit by like we did in Rwanda and Dalfour and let what happens happen, as long as we are not paying any price, like we do and did not in those places.
Yet, our narcissism of sightless foresight will kick into a major panic, when the first 5 million barrels of oil goes off line. It will escalate and frail into a mass hysteria, like the screams of a draining man, who should have worn a life preserve, but lack the foresight to assume he needed one, when the next 5 million barrels goes off line. Then, as famous actor once said, slightly differently, “we’ll be back.”
And the Beat Goes on….
QUOTE (Monsieur Le Tonk @ May 4 2007, 01:00 AM)
Rebuilding in Iraq "almost impossible" under current conditions
US report blames Iraqis for failing reconstruction
Inspectors Find Rebuilt Projects Crumbling in Iraq
US report blames Iraqis for failing reconstruction
Inspectors Find Rebuilt Projects Crumbling in Iraq
Monsieur, could you place find me some articles from the Guardian, NY Times, Int Herald that actually acknowledge the list all the accomplishments made by the PRT's, USAID, USACE, CPA, etc.? I've never seen any. I mean, I don't want to falsely accuse them of being incredibly biased sources that are always quick to critisize without mentioning any of the positive things that have happened.
So, please, if you could, do me that favor I ask, and post all those articles.
Oh, and by the way, good luck trying to find any seeing how terrorist propaganda practically owns the media (especially in Europe).
QUOTE (KenRI @ May 4 2007, 06:48 PM)
Monsieur, could you place find me some articles from the Guardian, NY Times, IHT that actually acknowledge the building and list all the accomplishments made by USAID, ACOE, CPA, etc.? I've never seen any. I mean, I don't want to falsely accuse them of being incredibly biased sources that are always quick to critisize without mentioning any of the positive things that have happened.
So, please, if you could, do me that favor I ask, and post all those articles.
Oh, and by the way, good luck trying to find any.
So, please, if you could, do me that favor I ask, and post all those articles.
Oh, and by the way, good luck trying to find any.
Kenny, have you stopped to think that this is because there are no accomplishments of any real note?
BTW your original post suggested Iraq under Saddam Hussein was some sort of wasteland devoid of education and healthcare, this is incorrect.
QUOTE
Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
To diversify the largely oil-based Iraqi economy, Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign revolutionized Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas.
Source
To diversify the largely oil-based Iraqi economy, Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign revolutionized Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas.
Source
QUOTE (Monsieur Le Tonk @ May 4 2007, 08:22 AM)
Kenny, have you stopped to think that this is because there are no accomplishments of any real note?
Sure, Tonky. Those 600+ schools we built for them are nothing. The electricity we gave to people who never had electricity (or only 1 or 2 hours a day), I guess that means nothing too. And all that drinking water the thousands of Iraqis now have. Are you aware of all these things? Apparently not. You're not aware that, because things have been neglected by Saddam and his loyalists for the past 30 years, that things were pretty crappy outsiode of his rich littel circle of friends.
And just look at the filthiness of Sadr City. Yup, that Madhi Army showed great concern and really knew how to take care of there own, huh?
Gee, this stuff is being blown up by terrorists...but of course, Leftists like yourself blame America, instead of, you know, the whackos who are really doing it.
QUOTE
BTW your original post suggested Iraq under Saddam Hussein was some sort of wasteland devoid of education and healthcare.
Yup. And as long as you were an Iraqi in Saddams' favor, you recieved all that. If not, as was the case with the vast majority of Iraqis, then oh well.
Yes, monsewer, it was SOOOOO much better under Saddam.
Correction, that's 800+ schools we built.
And then there's this:
FALLUJAH — A new sewer system is taking shape in Fallujah.
Involving hundreds of Iraqis in the workforce, it’s the biggest construction project the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oversees in Al Anbar Province of Iraq.
Fallujah’s new facility will use the construction of pump stations trunk mains and a treatment plant to serve as the backbone for a city-wide system. This is the initial phase that will eventually connect every home in the city.
“That community has been relying on septic tanks and the raw sewage is making its way onto the streets and into the storm sewers going directly to the Euphrates River,” explains Michael Jakubiak, part of a team of U. S. Army Corps of Engineers involved with the project. “So you have residents downstream that are taking their drinking water from that contaminated source. This project will improve that situation.”
Jakubiak said his office meets with the various construction firms for some 13 separate contracts, city and Iraqi ministry officials on a regular basis to ensure issues are resolved and the project moves forward.
“It’s those city and ministry officials who will eventually take over operation and maintenance of the new sewer system and we want to make sure it meets their standards," he added. "They’re fully engaged and eager to see this project completed.”
Regarding the contractors, he pointed out, “we’re doing a lot of work to mentor them especially in the areas of quality control and safety. Those are two key factors we continue to emphasize.
With the new system, two large pump stations will each have the capacity to handle 150,000 cubic meters daily. Fallujah’s sewage will be sent to inlet tanks at the waste water treatment facility, then aerated grit and oil removal tanks, onto 65-meter-wide aeration tanks, then settling tanks. The last stop is a chlorination contact chamber before being released to the Euphrates River.
“There’s no question the health of Fallujah’s residents will be benefited by this project. Our mission is to help the Iraqi people get back on their feet and I’m proud to be part of this effort,” said Jakubiak. He had been involved with sewer-related projects in Cary, N. C., prior to volunteering for a year’s duty in Iraq.
“This is a great assignment. We’re helping a community with real needs,” he said. “The local jobs created are a boon to Fallujah’s economy. Those workers know they’re making a difference.”
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=c...=11756&Itemid=1
What say ye now, Tonky? How long are you going to let yourself be a victim of the MISinformation War that Al Qaeda is so good at?
And then there's this:
FALLUJAH — A new sewer system is taking shape in Fallujah.
Involving hundreds of Iraqis in the workforce, it’s the biggest construction project the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oversees in Al Anbar Province of Iraq.
Fallujah’s new facility will use the construction of pump stations trunk mains and a treatment plant to serve as the backbone for a city-wide system. This is the initial phase that will eventually connect every home in the city.
“That community has been relying on septic tanks and the raw sewage is making its way onto the streets and into the storm sewers going directly to the Euphrates River,” explains Michael Jakubiak, part of a team of U. S. Army Corps of Engineers involved with the project. “So you have residents downstream that are taking their drinking water from that contaminated source. This project will improve that situation.”
Jakubiak said his office meets with the various construction firms for some 13 separate contracts, city and Iraqi ministry officials on a regular basis to ensure issues are resolved and the project moves forward.
“It’s those city and ministry officials who will eventually take over operation and maintenance of the new sewer system and we want to make sure it meets their standards," he added. "They’re fully engaged and eager to see this project completed.”
Regarding the contractors, he pointed out, “we’re doing a lot of work to mentor them especially in the areas of quality control and safety. Those are two key factors we continue to emphasize.
With the new system, two large pump stations will each have the capacity to handle 150,000 cubic meters daily. Fallujah’s sewage will be sent to inlet tanks at the waste water treatment facility, then aerated grit and oil removal tanks, onto 65-meter-wide aeration tanks, then settling tanks. The last stop is a chlorination contact chamber before being released to the Euphrates River.
“There’s no question the health of Fallujah’s residents will be benefited by this project. Our mission is to help the Iraqi people get back on their feet and I’m proud to be part of this effort,” said Jakubiak. He had been involved with sewer-related projects in Cary, N. C., prior to volunteering for a year’s duty in Iraq.
“This is a great assignment. We’re helping a community with real needs,” he said. “The local jobs created are a boon to Fallujah’s economy. Those workers know they’re making a difference.”
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=c...=11756&Itemid=1
What say ye now, Tonky? How long are you going to let yourself be a victim of the MISinformation War that Al Qaeda is so good at?
QUOTE ("KenRI")
When the President made his speech on the deck, the banner "Mission Accomplished" was shown in the background. Many think this was just a photo-op for the President, when, in all actuality, it was placed there by the men and women who serve on the Abraham Lincoln while on the way home. It was placed there after they accomplished their mission of flying 16,000+ sorties over Iraq. They were on their way home from the Persian Gulf in May of 2003, just a few miles away from San Diego, when President Bush made his speech
CNN.com transcript
QUOTE
KING: We're back with Bob Woodward. The book "State of Denial." Tell us about Rumsfeld talking about Mission Accomplished banner on the ship.
WOODWARD: This is May 1st, 2003, the very famous speech the president gave on the aircraft carrier, the Kennedy. You know there was that sign, Mission Accomplished. And I asked Rumsfeld about it and said he was -- Rumsfeld was in Baghdad and they sent him an advanced copy of the speech. And he said, I almost died because mission accomplished was in the speech. And he said, I got it out of the speech but I didn't get the sign down. Now they've always put out the story that it was the Navy that put up the sign. And there's the secretary of defense saying it was in the speech.
WOODWARD: This is May 1st, 2003, the very famous speech the president gave on the aircraft carrier, the Kennedy. You know there was that sign, Mission Accomplished. And I asked Rumsfeld about it and said he was -- Rumsfeld was in Baghdad and they sent him an advanced copy of the speech. And he said, I almost died because mission accomplished was in the speech. And he said, I got it out of the speech but I didn't get the sign down. Now they've always put out the story that it was the Navy that put up the sign. And there's the secretary of defense saying it was in the speech.
Yeah. OK. The President had nothing to do with it.
Good for you. Grizz. You can believe Bob Woodward all you want. I believe Gen Franks, Cmdr. Chun., and the crewmembers of the USS Abraham Lincoln.
By the way, someone had to make that banner for them. Last I heard aircraft carriers don't have printing machines.
By the way, someone had to make that banner for them. Last I heard aircraft carriers don't have printing machines.
QUOTE ("KenRI")
Good for you. Grizz. You can believe Bob Woodward all you want.
I sure will. Seeing that he probably recorded him during the interview for the book, there is backtrack to prove that Rummey said what he said; if not I would sue him if I was Rummey. 
QUOTE ("KenRI")
By the way, someone had to make that banner for them. Last I heard aircraft carriers don't have printing machines.
That's what gets me too! If it was the sailors that wanted to do this, wouldn't it be reasonable to see a banner of cloth made with magic marker? 
QUOTE (Kenny)
How long are you going to let yourself be a victim of the MISinformation War that Al Qaeda is so good at?
It astounds me how a man in a cave can be winning the propaganda war!
Again I'd suggest you remove the rose tinted spectacles and grasp reality, the US intervention in Iraq was nothing more than ill-conceived American adventurism, premised on falsehood. It's execution has be execrable leaving the US in an unwinnable position, the Middle East a more divided place, if that was possible, and the World less safe.
QUOTE (Monsieur Le Tonk @ May 5 2007, 08:42 AM)
It astounds me how a man in a cave can be winning the propaganda war!
Again I'd suggest you remove the rose tinted spectacles and grasp reality, the US intervention in Iraq was nothing more than ill-conceived American adventurism, premised on falsehood. It's execution has be execrable leaving the US in an unwinnable position, the Middle East a more divided place, if that was possible, and the World less safe.
Again I'd suggest you remove the rose tinted spectacles and grasp reality, the US intervention in Iraq was nothing more than ill-conceived American adventurism, premised on falsehood. It's execution has be execrable leaving the US in an unwinnable position, the Middle East a more divided place, if that was possible, and the World less safe.
It astounds me how a man in a cave can be winning the propaganda war!
Why would that remotely astound you, when your likeminded mindsets are the vast effect of its entirety if there is any tangible effect at all other than an illusion of utopian perpetuation for this barbarism winning?
An effect not in any measure shown as winning, as that was never possible, but merely a mindset of advocacy seeking out the negative, where and when ever possible, fabricating it if need be, applying the blame, in a game of one legged chairmanship, while singing off key, the praise of shame in a one sided melody as if there was but ONE Chorus to the song. While ignoring others far more barbarous, far more dispassionate as if they did not exist and did not do what we see in your drum beat of media advocacy for them every day.
An effect that is nothing more than playing a drum in room full deaf mutes, who hear the beat of what they think is being played out, ignoring all but that which they wish were the beat, not as it is and or will be, now and or in the future.
Why would you assume the Middle East is anymore divided than its history has proven it to be as an embedded status quo in region in a constant state of turmoil and conflict since the dawn of Western and Near Eastern Civilization?
Why would you assume, without the slightest shred of indisputable evidence, that this current version, of the many countless conflicts of similar and long standing divisions in the Middle East is anymore execrably linked to a world being any more unsafe than it was before the 2nd Iraq war, or has it has been for centuries. More importantly as it will be, once more nuclear capabilities and other venues for potential WMD’s are introduced into a region whose very cultures exist knowing nothing but death and conflict as the only solution to discourse.
Yet, as you and this mindset imply in advocacy, as if as clairvoyant as history dictates, this from afar, not me, laissez-faire view, of, what will be, will be, de facto realities in the now and in the future is the be all and know all, of right courses to take?
Just how unsafe will be this world be comparatively to the alternative reality you willfully ignore in this advocacy, that, by absent implication, there will not continue to be a divided conflicting Middle East where conflict is the determinate equalizer as it has been for centuries.
Why is it in your implied advocacy that we in the west should leave them NOW to their own devices which has always proven to be to bleed the foe until there is a clear winner. Thus, in alternative, you ignore completely that from that final win, by whom ever, there will not come more unity, with more capability and determination. Yet now enabled and emboldened by an advocated show of weak will and weakened resolved which silently assumes it will all stop if we do this or that.
Your mindset of advocacy is void in offering of visions of what it will be like once we in the west assume your subservient "missionary position " in the now. Your ideas imply nothing, but a hope and a prayer, that it will all be better tomorrow. When, in fact, no one has the slightest idea of any substance that tomorrow’s fate and outcome for those there and, us here in the west, for whom you presume you advocate, will be safer by taking this missionary position your so sightlessly in the now of narcissism advocate as if the only true course at all.
QUOTE
History is our only true clairvoyant of humanities repartee of recall and wisdom, proving to one and all, time and time again, that he who can not envision he has enemies, besides himself, can not embrace his own demise. Thus he is destine to come face to face with that which he can not and or will not envision nor embrace, as possible, in the now of histories misjudged possibilities.--TRADER
QUOTE
Blair's departure: The view from Baghdad
By Patrick Cockburn
From The Independent published 11 May 2007
Iraq may be seen in Britain as Tony Blair's nemesis but Iraqis yesterday greeted his departure with utter indifference. Asked what they thought about it, most simply shrugged their shoulders and looked surprised at being asked the question. Others said they saw him as a surrogate for President Bush.
It is easy to see why Mr Blair is not regarded with more affection in Iraq. On 8 April 2003, just before the fall of Saddam Hussein, British troops distributed a leaflet in Arabic containing a message from him to Iraqis. It promised "a peaceful, prosperous Iraq which will run by and for the Iraqi people".
Iraqis are all too aware this never happened. Four years after the letter, Iraq is perhaps the least peaceful country in the world. Baghdad is gripped by terror. On a quiet day yesterday police picked up 21 bodies of murdered men. Nobody knows how many corpses lie at the bottom of the river or in shallow graves in the desert.
It is not just the economy that is in turmoil. Much of the population is close to malnutrition with 54 per cent of the population living on less than one dollar a day, of whom 15 per cent seek to survive on just 5 cents.
Some 60 per cent of people are unemployed. Of the 34,000 doctors in Iraq in 2003, 12,000 have fled the country and 2,000 have been killed, according to the United Nations.
Mr Blair has also failed in Iraqi eyes to fulfil his other promise that the country would be run by Iraqis. A poll this spring showed that 59 per cent of them believe that Iraq is controlled by the US and only 34 per cent think it is being run by the Iraqi government.
In Britain criticism of Mr Blair has mainly revolved around the decision to go to war, the "dodgy" dossier and the absence of the weapons of mass destruction. This has been to his advantage. He has repeatedly said that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator and does not regret removing him.
Many Iraqis would agree. They did not fight for Saddam - not even the supposedly super-loyal Special Republican Guards - and most were glad to see the end of his disastrous rule. But within a month of the supposed end of the war, Blair went along with what was essentially a US decision to remain in occupation of the country and remake Iraq as it wanted. It was from this decision that all the present disasters flowed.
Mr Blair never gave a sense of knowing much about Iraq when he invaded it or learning anything over the past four years. His speeches and statements about it were often puerile.
The first year after the fall of Saddam saw a thorough-going occupation. The second offered nominal Iraqi independence under unelected pro-Western Iraqis.
The elections of 2005 saw the triumph of the Shia religious parties to the dismay of the American and British embassies. Ever since they have sought to neuter their influence.
It has always been difficult to know how much of his own propaganda Mr Blair actually believed. Again and again he would say that much of Iraq was at peace, the press was exaggerating its miseries and progress was being made.
He had the great advantage that these placid provinces were in reality so dangerous that no reporter could go there to refute the Prime Minister's claims.
No successful political or military policy could be based on the nonsense that Mr Blair repeatedly spoke about Iraq.
He said that the insurgency was isolated when from an early stage in the war it had wide support among the Sunni community. By March this year, 78 per cent of Iraqis opposed the presence of US and British forces according to a wide-ranging poll.
There was a further ugly consequence to this. In Afghanistan al-Qa'ida had little support. Its numbers were so small that, for its promotional videos showing its fighters in action, it had to hire local tribesmen by the day. In the first months of the occupation of Iraq, al-Qa'ida for the first time found a sympathetic environment in which to grow.
The "terrorism" that Mr Blair was so regularly to denounce incubated and flourished in conditions that he helped create.
Iraq exposed not only Mr Blair's weaknesses but Britain's. It has been strange over the past four years for me to return to London from Baghdad wondering if people really knew what was happening in Iraq.
I found almost immediately that, from taxi driver to general and senior civil servant, they knew all about the mistakes made in Iraq but they were also resigned to the fact that they could do nothing about them.
Mr Blair is not unique among prime ministers in making catastrophic errors in the Middle East.
It was said that Lloyd George could remain prime minister for life as the architect of victory in 1918 but four years later he was forced to resign after trying to go to war with Turkey.
In 1956, Anthony Eden disastrously invaded Egypt claiming, in words echoed by Blair almost half a century later, that Nasser was a threat to the Middle East.
Lloyd George and Eden were swiftly evicted from Downing Street. Mr Blair clung on. It is this that makes his legacy in Iraq so poisonous.
For four years he has nailed British colours to a failed US policy over which Britain has no significant influence. He has advertised a humiliating British dependency on Washington without gaining any advantages.
As for Iraqis, despite all his rhetoric about rescuing them from Saddam, he has been surprisingly indifferent to their fate.
By Patrick Cockburn
From The Independent published 11 May 2007
Iraq may be seen in Britain as Tony Blair's nemesis but Iraqis yesterday greeted his departure with utter indifference. Asked what they thought about it, most simply shrugged their shoulders and looked surprised at being asked the question. Others said they saw him as a surrogate for President Bush.
It is easy to see why Mr Blair is not regarded with more affection in Iraq. On 8 April 2003, just before the fall of Saddam Hussein, British troops distributed a leaflet in Arabic containing a message from him to Iraqis. It promised "a peaceful, prosperous Iraq which will run by and for the Iraqi people".
Iraqis are all too aware this never happened. Four years after the letter, Iraq is perhaps the least peaceful country in the world. Baghdad is gripped by terror. On a quiet day yesterday police picked up 21 bodies of murdered men. Nobody knows how many corpses lie at the bottom of the river or in shallow graves in the desert.
It is not just the economy that is in turmoil. Much of the population is close to malnutrition with 54 per cent of the population living on less than one dollar a day, of whom 15 per cent seek to survive on just 5 cents.
Some 60 per cent of people are unemployed. Of the 34,000 doctors in Iraq in 2003, 12,000 have fled the country and 2,000 have been killed, according to the United Nations.
Mr Blair has also failed in Iraqi eyes to fulfil his other promise that the country would be run by Iraqis. A poll this spring showed that 59 per cent of them believe that Iraq is controlled by the US and only 34 per cent think it is being run by the Iraqi government.
In Britain criticism of Mr Blair has mainly revolved around the decision to go to war, the "dodgy" dossier and the absence of the weapons of mass destruction. This has been to his advantage. He has repeatedly said that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator and does not regret removing him.
Many Iraqis would agree. They did not fight for Saddam - not even the supposedly super-loyal Special Republican Guards - and most were glad to see the end of his disastrous rule. But within a month of the supposed end of the war, Blair went along with what was essentially a US decision to remain in occupation of the country and remake Iraq as it wanted. It was from this decision that all the present disasters flowed.
Mr Blair never gave a sense of knowing much about Iraq when he invaded it or learning anything over the past four years. His speeches and statements about it were often puerile.
The first year after the fall of Saddam saw a thorough-going occupation. The second offered nominal Iraqi independence under unelected pro-Western Iraqis.
The elections of 2005 saw the triumph of the Shia religious parties to the dismay of the American and British embassies. Ever since they have sought to neuter their influence.
It has always been difficult to know how much of his own propaganda Mr Blair actually believed. Again and again he would say that much of Iraq was at peace, the press was exaggerating its miseries and progress was being made.
He had the great advantage that these placid provinces were in reality so dangerous that no reporter could go there to refute the Prime Minister's claims.
No successful political or military policy could be based on the nonsense that Mr Blair repeatedly spoke about Iraq.
He said that the insurgency was isolated when from an early stage in the war it had wide support among the Sunni community. By March this year, 78 per cent of Iraqis opposed the presence of US and British forces according to a wide-ranging poll.
There was a further ugly consequence to this. In Afghanistan al-Qa'ida had little support. Its numbers were so small that, for its promotional videos showing its fighters in action, it had to hire local tribesmen by the day. In the first months of the occupation of Iraq, al-Qa'ida for the first time found a sympathetic environment in which to grow.
The "terrorism" that Mr Blair was so regularly to denounce incubated and flourished in conditions that he helped create.
Iraq exposed not only Mr Blair's weaknesses but Britain's. It has been strange over the past four years for me to return to London from Baghdad wondering if people really knew what was happening in Iraq.
I found almost immediately that, from taxi driver to general and senior civil servant, they knew all about the mistakes made in Iraq but they were also resigned to the fact that they could do nothing about them.
Mr Blair is not unique among prime ministers in making catastrophic errors in the Middle East.
It was said that Lloyd George could remain prime minister for life as the architect of victory in 1918 but four years later he was forced to resign after trying to go to war with Turkey.
In 1956, Anthony Eden disastrously invaded Egypt claiming, in words echoed by Blair almost half a century later, that Nasser was a threat to the Middle East.
Lloyd George and Eden were swiftly evicted from Downing Street. Mr Blair clung on. It is this that makes his legacy in Iraq so poisonous.
For four years he has nailed British colours to a failed US policy over which Britain has no significant influence. He has advertised a humiliating British dependency on Washington without gaining any advantages.
As for Iraqis, despite all his rhetoric about rescuing them from Saddam, he has been surprisingly indifferent to their fate.
Exit Bush's patsy.
Reading the above on the situation in Iraq are you going to tell me that Bush II's little adventure in the Middle East has not been a veritable fiasco?
What fiasco, Tonk?
Do you mean the Iraq Constitution? The removal of a dictator who was replaced by democratically elected leaders? The amusement parks, carnivals, restaurants, and markets going on in Baghdad now? The record number of Iraqis enlisting in the ISF and IP? The sheiks in the western provinces of Iraq declaring war and taking up arms against Al Qaeda? The 9 out of 10 Iraqi divisions who are now LEADING the combat ops? The Free Speech and Free Press they now enjoy? The 9% economic growth in 2007?
Please Tonky. What alleged "fiascos" are you referring to?
Do you mean the Iraq Constitution? The removal of a dictator who was replaced by democratically elected leaders? The amusement parks, carnivals, restaurants, and markets going on in Baghdad now? The record number of Iraqis enlisting in the ISF and IP? The sheiks in the western provinces of Iraq declaring war and taking up arms against Al Qaeda? The 9 out of 10 Iraqi divisions who are now LEADING the combat ops? The Free Speech and Free Press they now enjoy? The 9% economic growth in 2007?
Please Tonky. What alleged "fiascos" are you referring to?
QUOTE (KenRI @ May 11 2007, 10:59 PM)
What fiasco, Tonk?
Do you mean the Iraq Constitution? The removal of a dictator who was replaced by democratically elected leaders? The amusement parks, carnivals, restaurants, and markets going on in Baghdad now? The record number of Iraqis enlisting in the ISF and IP? The sheiks in the western provinces of Iraq declaring war and taking up arms against Al Qaeda? The 9 out of 10 Iraqi divisions who are now LEADING the combat ops? The Free Speech and Free Press they now enjoy? The 9% economic growth in 2007?
Please Tonky. What alleged "fiascos" are you referring to?
Do you mean the Iraq Constitution? The removal of a dictator who was replaced by democratically elected leaders? The amusement parks, carnivals, restaurants, and markets going on in Baghdad now? The record number of Iraqis enlisting in the ISF and IP? The sheiks in the western provinces of Iraq declaring war and taking up arms against Al Qaeda? The 9 out of 10 Iraqi divisions who are now LEADING the combat ops? The Free Speech and Free Press they now enjoy? The 9% economic growth in 2007?
Please Tonky. What alleged "fiascos" are you referring to?
QUOTE (The Independent)
On 8 April 2003, just before the fall of Saddam Hussein, British troops distributed a leaflet in Arabic containing a message from him to Iraqis. It promised "a peaceful, prosperous Iraq which will run by and for the Iraqi people".
Iraqis are all too aware this never happened. Four years after the letter, Iraq is perhaps the least peaceful country in the world. Baghdad is gripped by terror. On a quiet day yesterday police picked up 21 bodies of murdered men. Nobody knows how many corpses lie at the bottom of the river or in shallow graves in the desert.
It is not just the economy that is in turmoil. Much of the population is close to malnutrition with 54 per cent of the population living on less than one dollar a day, of whom 15 per cent seek to survive on just 5 cents.
Some 60 per cent of people are unemployed. Of the 34,000 doctors in Iraq in 2003, 12,000 have fled the country and 2,000 have been killed, according to the United Nations.
Iraqis are all too aware this never happened. Four years after the letter, Iraq is perhaps the least peaceful country in the world. Baghdad is gripped by terror. On a quiet day yesterday police picked up 21 bodies of murdered men. Nobody knows how many corpses lie at the bottom of the river or in shallow graves in the desert.
It is not just the economy that is in turmoil. Much of the population is close to malnutrition with 54 per cent of the population living on less than one dollar a day, of whom 15 per cent seek to survive on just 5 cents.
Some 60 per cent of people are unemployed. Of the 34,000 doctors in Iraq in 2003, 12,000 have fled the country and 2,000 have been killed, according to the United Nations.
It is great to hear that the occupying non-Iraqi forces are building schools, sewer systems, etc. But before we get an accurate count of how many such things they are (re)building, can we have an accurate count of how many such things they DESTROYED in both Gulf Wars?
When I was in kindergarten, if I built a sand castle for some other student after I knocked it down, that didn't even make us even.
When I was in kindergarten, if I built a sand castle for some other student after I knocked it down, that didn't even make us even.
QUOTE
Some 60 per cent of people are unemployed. Of the 34,000 doctors in Iraq in 2003, 12,000 have fled the country and 2,000 have been killed, according to the United Nations.
The very same United Nations that enriched their hierarchy in the Iraqi oil for food scam??? Yes credible bunch they are..............
QUOTE (Nomad @ May 12 2007, 12:37 PM)
The very same United Nations that enriched their hierarchy in the Iraqi oil for food scam??? Yes credible bunch they are..............
Then, to the contrary, do you have more accurate sources? How many fewer doctors have fled Iraq, or been killed, or is it all just popcorn to you?
QUOTE (Monsieur Le Tonk @ May 11 2007, 03:24 AM)
Exit Bush's patsy.
Reading the above on the situation in Iraq are you going to tell me that Bush II's little adventure in the Middle East has not been a veritable fiasco?
....Some 60 per cent of people are unemployed.
Reading the above on the situation in Iraq are you going to tell me that Bush II's little adventure in the Middle East has not been a veritable fiasco?
....Some 60 per cent of people are unemployed.
Cockburn LOLOLOL!!!!!
Unemployment Rate: 25-30%
http://www.mideasti.org/countries/countries.php?name=iraq
Now why would the little worm Cockburn tell you that unemployment was 60%??? Why would a so called journalist try to mislead you and why do you eat it all up so eagerly? I guess S H I T is an aquired taste.
MARK
QUOTE (Grizzly @ May 4 2007, 06:38 PM)
I sure will. Seeing that he probably recorded him during the interview for the book, there is backtrack to prove that Rummey said what he said; if not I would sue him if I was Rummey.
That's what gets me too! If it was the sailors that wanted to do this, wouldn't it be reasonable to see a banner of cloth made with magic marker?
That's what gets me too! If it was the sailors that wanted to do this, wouldn't it be reasonable to see a banner of cloth made with magic marker?
The aircraft carrier and crew had in fact accomplished their mission. Not much use for aircraft carriers in a peacekeeping operation. MARK
QUOTE (Nomad @ May 3 2007, 09:52 PM)
This is too funny. First off there are no species of ticks that are smaller than knats. So your feeble attempt at a 3rd grade comeback is just as juvinile as your total intellect.
And, as I have said before, Bush is a Fn pussy. However compared to Gore or Kerry he has balls a mile wide.
Now lets do this again...................................
You said:
And I proved you wrong with this:
Now lets try to stay focused here MrLeft ( I realize this is alot to ask from one crippled by emotion ).
Please tell me how this was all Bushs' doing.
It doesn't matter anyway...so 23 dems went along with Bush's military designs...so what?
It's still Bush's baby...actually the neo-cons baby, and he's been riding this horse since 9/11.
Credit for Iraq--Reps 100%
Blame for Iraq--Dems 50%
It doesn't add up does it?
And as for my earlier question...which as usual it's being avoided, took out of context, and ultimately didn't answer...I'll ask again
...IN LIGHT OF THE REPUBLICAN 'VALUE' OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, why do you take being asked to serve ...an insult?
And what's being mischaractized here is that the joint resolution was a declaration of war. It wasn't. It had various conditions and contigencies built into before force could be used. It required that the president work through the UN Security Council to exhaust all diplomatic efforts first, and to enforce UN Security Council resolutions. If you remember, the administration refused to bring the use of force against Iraq to a vote by the Security Council because it knew it would be voted down.
IMO, the president circumvented this part of the joint resolution. And now that the objectives for using force have been met, the joint resolution no longer can be used to justify our continued occupation of Iraq.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021002-2.html
IMO, the president circumvented this part of the joint resolution. And now that the objectives for using force have been met, the joint resolution no longer can be used to justify our continued occupation of Iraq.
QUOTE
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
b- obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
b- PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or b- is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
b- obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
b- PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or b- is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021002-2.html
QUOTE (dixon76710 @ May 15 2007, 01:39 AM)
Unemployment Rate: 25-30%
http://www.mideasti.org/countries/countries.php?name=iraq
Now why would the little worm Cockburn tell you that unemployment was 60%??? Why would a so called journalist try to mislead you and why do you eat it all up so eagerly?
http://www.mideasti.org/countries/countries.php?name=iraq
Now why would the little worm Cockburn tell you that unemployment was 60%??? Why would a so called journalist try to mislead you and why do you eat it all up so eagerly?
So what makes your CIA data from 2005 more current?
Patrick Cockburn~ 'a Middle East correspondent since 1979' ~ he has far bigger balls than our ArmchairDixon!
QUOTE (MrLeft @ May 14 2007, 05:20 PM)
It doesn't matter anyway...so 23 dems went along with Bush's military designs...so what?
It's still Bush's baby...actually the neo-cons baby, and he's been riding this horse since 9/11.
Credit for Iraq--Reps 100%
Blame for Iraq--Dems 50%
It doesn't add up does it?
Guess nothing much adds up to you. A liberal that utilizes rationalization and emotional justification to support their feeble points have no use for logic.
And as for my earlier question...which as usual it's being avoided, took out of context, and ultimately didn't answer...I'll ask again
...IN LIGHT OF THE REPUBLICAN 'VALUE' OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, why do you take being asked to serve ...an insult?
And what question was that MrLeft?? You need to put down the bong, clear your head, and then ask a COHERENT question that is worthy of debate. So you get a mulligan here. Just WTF are you asking???
It's still Bush's baby...actually the neo-cons baby, and he's been riding this horse since 9/11.
Credit for Iraq--Reps 100%
Blame for Iraq--Dems 50%
It doesn't add up does it?
Guess nothing much adds up to you. A liberal that utilizes rationalization and emotional justification to support their feeble points have no use for logic.
And as for my earlier question...which as usual it's being avoided, took out of context, and ultimately didn't answer...I'll ask again
...IN LIGHT OF THE REPUBLICAN 'VALUE' OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, why do you take being asked to serve ...an insult?
And what question was that MrLeft?? You need to put down the bong, clear your head, and then ask a COHERENT question that is worthy of debate. So you get a mulligan here. Just WTF are you asking???
