Blame It on the Democrats
National News
Submitted by Steve Davis
ByDan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, April 4, 2007; 1:32 PM
"President Bush's Iraq strategy may be coming straight from Vice President Cheney, but his political attacks on Democrats who dare to demand a pullout are pure Karl Rove.
When the president is on the defensive, Rove's signature move is to disdain the quaint constraints of reality and attack the critics where they are strongest -- ideally, by tarring them with Bush's own weakness.
The ultimate example, of course, came during the 2004 campaign when Rove was marketing a man who had ducked service in Vietnam against a war hero. Somehow, Rove managed to make John Kerry look like the guy with the problem.
Rove's approach was very much on display yesterday at Bush's Rose Garden news conference.
"The president's current weakness is profound. His war in Iraq appears to be a colossal failure, and as a result the public has turned against him and wants the troops home and safe.
"But to hear Bush talk, it's the Democrats who are the party of failure. It's the Democrats who are defying the will of the people. And in the latest, truly dazzling talking point unveiled by the president yesterday, it's the Democrats who would keep the troops in harm's way.
What Rove can still count on, in spite of everything, is that the president's assertions make it into the headlines no matter how dubious they may be -- and that all too many reporters prefer uncritical transcription to the kind of tough but fair analysis that would be required to put what the president says in context."
What happened to good reporting? Why must the MSM always be Rove & Bush's willing accessory to crimes and corruption? This is a very troubling situation. The Danster was cooking on this day - check it out. What about "context" - Nathan and Hank?
I recall not long ago, that KSfarmgrrl was making these very points.
lindainks55 said:
The more times bushco has need of tarring critics with their own weaknesses the clearer it will be to thinking people.
Maybe his veto of the funding bill won't YELL as loudly as it should, "It isn't Congress! The path to funding was sent to the president’s desk and it was he who vetoed it." He vetoed it because he doesn't want anything anyway but his. He may as well have lay in the floor on his tummy and kicked his feet while pummeling the floor with his fists. It is as much a selfish hissy fit as I’ve ever seen a two year old throw.
Maybe his veto of federal money to fund embryonic stem cell research with blastocysts THAT ARE THROWN IN THE TRASH won't scream of the hypocrisy it is. Maybe it won't say, "The destruction isn't what matters, it's HOW they are destroyed."
Maybe taking away the protection of habeas corpus won't tell some their right to unlawful imprisonment has been removed. They'll still have their illusions of having nothing to hide as imaginary protection.
Maybe turning our schools into “memorization of dull fact” camps won't be seen as a failure by some. They won't recognize that memorizing facts to spit out on a test doesn't tell us whether our kids are prepared for the world and they've forgotten (or never known) that practicing coming up with conclusions derived from the facts and communicating those to others is proof of learning.
I could go on. I know many of you recognize the vast scope of failures and harm to Americans the bush years have brought.
Maybe one by one someone will see THE BIG PICTURE and without seeing it in an individual act will finally "get it" when it all comes together.
I personally think Bush has been the greatest ambassador for the Democratic Party ever. You can't buy this kind of advertising for change.
Maybe his veto of the funding bill won't YELL as loudly as it should, "It isn't Congress! The path to funding was sent to the president’s desk and it was he who vetoed it." He vetoed it because he doesn't want anything anyway but his. He may as well have lay in the floor on his tummy and kicked his feet while pummeling the floor with his fists. It is as much a selfish hissy fit as I’ve ever seen a two year old throw.
Maybe his veto of federal money to fund embryonic stem cell research with blastocysts THAT ARE THROWN IN THE TRASH won't scream of the hypocrisy it is. Maybe it won't say, "The destruction isn't what matters, it's HOW they are destroyed."
Maybe taking away the protection of habeas corpus won't tell some their right to unlawful imprisonment has been removed. They'll still have their illusions of having nothing to hide as imaginary protection.
Maybe turning our schools into “memorization of dull fact” camps won't be seen as a failure by some. They won't recognize that memorizing facts to spit out on a test doesn't tell us whether our kids are prepared for the world and they've forgotten (or never known) that practicing coming up with conclusions derived from the facts and communicating those to others is proof of learning.
I could go on. I know many of you recognize the vast scope of failures and harm to Americans the bush years have brought.
Maybe one by one someone will see THE BIG PICTURE and without seeing it in an individual act will finally "get it" when it all comes together.
I personally think Bush has been the greatest ambassador for the Democratic Party ever. You can't buy this kind of advertising for change.
WSClark said:
The Bush Administration continues to amaze with their absolute disdain for the American people. No lie is too big, no conclusion too ridiculous, no stratergy (?!?) too ill conceived. It goes beyond the mere incompetence - it would appear that Bush and Company are WILLFULLY incompetent.
"Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam connection
Vice president’s words come as latest Pentagon report again dismisses link"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17975678/
By the way, this article is proof that Bush willingly lied us into a war of choice.
"Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam connection
Vice president’s words come as latest Pentagon report again dismisses link"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17975678/
By the way, this article is proof that Bush willingly lied us into a war of choice.
Danny said:
You know what I don't get, if you believe you are right, the come out and sell your idea to me. (In regards to instead of blaming someone else for the problem(s)).
In other words, sure it is easy to blame say... Democrats for not giving you something, but what if having a time table and a deadline could actually get something moving forward.
The way I view Iraq right now is that it is a stalemate at the moment. In so far as, we don't have a real deadline for which certain goals are to be accomplished, etc.
I think we should identify those things we can actually fix, and then prioritize those things in order of importance(such as running water and electricity). If something could be better off providing money/jobs to local Iraqi's lets do it, get them involved also, and get them jobs.
I think though I likely over simplify things but sometimes simple is better, and sometimes it's not.
In other words, sure it is easy to blame say... Democrats for not giving you something, but what if having a time table and a deadline could actually get something moving forward.
The way I view Iraq right now is that it is a stalemate at the moment. In so far as, we don't have a real deadline for which certain goals are to be accomplished, etc.
I think we should identify those things we can actually fix, and then prioritize those things in order of importance(such as running water and electricity). If something could be better off providing money/jobs to local Iraqi's lets do it, get them involved also, and get them jobs.
I think though I likely over simplify things but sometimes simple is better, and sometimes it's not.
darwinsdisciple said:
I originally thought there was a way our military could help stabilize Iraq. I have since concluded that I was wrong. The only people who can stop Iraq's civil/sectarian war is the Iraqi people. I think our military provides some pseudo-stabilizaton in that it forestalls the sectarian slaughter that is going to come at some point. The Sunni are unwilling to accept a role as a minority group and the Shi'ites are unwilling to share power in any meaningful way. I think the country will be divided up along sectarian lines whether we help them with that or not. I think congress needs to defund the war effort, bring the troops, and Nancy Pelosi needs to go back to the middle east and say "sorry folks, we had a madman in charge and we're sorry he screwed your contries and and region as bad as he did. We are prepared to pay war repirations. And we futher promise to never elect another neo-con regime again."
I purchased a book today that is difficult to put down. It is called _It CAN Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush_ which is a take off of the Sinclair Lewis book _It Can't Happen Here_. Lewis' book was a satire about America becoming fascist like Germany and Italy - the latter was written in 1935. Lewis' fiction sounds stunningly like the reality of the Bush administration.
The book goes back to teachers of Wolfowitz at the University of Chicago in its search for the origins of neo-conservatism. While neo-conservatives are usually secular, their interests in a very perverse way, dovetail perfectly with those of evangelicals and dominionists.
The book is by an author named Joe Conason. He recounts how Bush had plans to extend the power of the presidency before 9/11. I recommend it and would be glad to put it out on loan to any who would be interested. Once I'm done, that is. The rate I am going, that should not be long.
I ordered another book _Unspun: Getting to the Truth in an Age of Disinformation_. This book was put out by the Annenberg Center at Penn. Fleetwood on the other blog was calling Annenberg "communists" and such, so went to their site to rebutt his nutzy claims and found the book. So, I guess I cannot say that Fleet is completely worthless, now - dadgummit...
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis
I purchased a book today that is difficult to put down. It is called _It CAN Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush_ which is a take off of the Sinclair Lewis book _It Can't Happen Here_. Lewis' book was a satire about America becoming fascist like Germany and Italy - the latter was written in 1935. Lewis' fiction sounds stunningly like the reality of the Bush administration.
The book goes back to teachers of Wolfowitz at the University of Chicago in its search for the origins of neo-conservatism. While neo-conservatives are usually secular, their interests in a very perverse way, dovetail perfectly with those of evangelicals and dominionists.
The book is by an author named Joe Conason. He recounts how Bush had plans to extend the power of the presidency before 9/11. I recommend it and would be glad to put it out on loan to any who would be interested. Once I'm done, that is. The rate I am going, that should not be long.
I ordered another book _Unspun: Getting to the Truth in an Age of Disinformation_. This book was put out by the Annenberg Center at Penn. Fleetwood on the other blog was calling Annenberg "communists" and such, so went to their site to rebutt his nutzy claims and found the book. So, I guess I cannot say that Fleet is completely worthless, now - dadgummit...
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis
lindainks55 said:
That was well written Steven. If the war effort isn't "defunded" as you suggest I hope the Democrats stand firm and attach stipulations for withdrawing troops to any funding bill they pass. Bush could veto until he is blue in the face but IF they stuck to their guns it would prove to Americans who really wasn't funding/supporting the troops. I'm not holding my breath. The Democrats don't have a great track record either. I'm afraid they'll cave under bush's temper tantrums, fearing the American people will believe the raving idiot and blame them. Like the original content of this post says clearly, "the MSM seems to always be Rove & Bush's willing accessory to crimes and corruption." So the Democrats will be nervous that if they stand firm they will bear the blame where they most fear -- at the polls. Sad. But it's mostly about getting reelected, isn't it?
I would like to read the book you recommend sometime -- no hurry.
I would like to read the book you recommend sometime -- no hurry.
Nathan said:
Well Steven,
Interestingly enough, I had been busy these past couple of weeks and tonight I decided to come check this blog out. What do I find? I find a question directed towards me!
Well, I figure this deserves a response. I am not sure what is up with the half quoted paragraphs (i.e. only one quote mark) so I am assuming this was all written by you.
Your very first sentence is already a pant load. The liberals have this fascination with implying that nothing comes from Bush, that he is merely a puppet. You do this by saying his policies are coming from both Cheney and Rove.
In politics, one must figure out how to capitalize on ones strengths and exploiting the others weaknesses. If you can make your opponents strengths look bad too, then that is icing on the cake! There is nothing evil in this. It is what you do if you want to win. You don’t have to lie, cheat, or do anything unethical either.
So then you lead into your example of Kerry vs. Bush’s service record. You label Bush as one who ducked service and Kerry as a war hero. That is an out right mischaracterization if not a lie in it’s self!
Kerry spent a few months in Vietnam after being sent home from some very minor wounds. This “war hero” you tout then proceeded to attend anti-war rallies where they disgraced the service, his uniform, and the troops still serving in Vietnam. Kerry lied about war atrocities he accused his fellow troops of. Kerry the “war hero” threw his medals (or whatever story you are going with about whose medals he threw or just his ribbons…) away. That act alone is a disgrace to the uniform, the history, and the traditions of the military. This is your “war hero?”
Bush, contrary to your claim, did not duck service in Vietnam. Actually, you don’t have a shred of evidence to show that he did either. This makes your claim little better than a lie. Bush served honorably, he did his duty like the many other thousands of Reservists. His job was not an easy one. You don’t become a fighter pilot easily, especially when you are ducking service in Vietnam.
Regardless, this is an old issue. It is one that has been so scrutinized and talked about that I am amazed that any intelligent person would still be dredging over like some conspiracy nut. On top of that you label Kerry as a “war hero” in your comparison? That is the first I have seen that one done.
Moving on…
Bush has many weaknesses. I would not consider Iraq to be one of them. I am not sure what colossal failure means to you, since it is a rather subjective term, especially when you use it to describe the war in Iraq.
The public may appear to be against the war, depending on what questions you are asking them. Polls can be manipulated that way. I have no doubt that the public is indeed growing impatient with the war and would rather us not be there. However, I don’t think a majority of the people would want us to just leave knowing the consequences if we did.
The war in Iraq has had many monumental successes. I find it sad that people like you seem to be unable to find anything good and continue to portray everything there as a complete failure.
Our military destroyed the Iraqi army and removed Saddam from power in such amazingly little time. We also did it while sustaining minimal casualties. Liberals love to harp on the 4,000 troops lost so far when they all voted for this war on the pretext that the invasion alone was estimated to cost 10,000.
So, in my book we are still up. Yet the troop death toll is used as a beating stick by the left in this country.
I could continue, but I am trying not to write a book here…
You ask the question: “What has happened to good reporting?”
Well, I agree with you there. What has happened? If we had good reporting the people in this country would hear more about the good thing s happening in Iraq than the 1 minute headlines on how many people were killed.
If we had good reporting we wouldn’t be listening to Rosie O’Donnell spew conspiracy theory crap all over the ABC network about 9-11.
I could continue, but I think we are looking at that question differently.
You want to talk about context? Well, when you want it let me know. While you are still writing crap comparing Kerry as a “war hero” to Bush as ducking service you apparently have none in my opinion.
Nathan
Interestingly enough, I had been busy these past couple of weeks and tonight I decided to come check this blog out. What do I find? I find a question directed towards me!
Well, I figure this deserves a response. I am not sure what is up with the half quoted paragraphs (i.e. only one quote mark) so I am assuming this was all written by you.
Your very first sentence is already a pant load. The liberals have this fascination with implying that nothing comes from Bush, that he is merely a puppet. You do this by saying his policies are coming from both Cheney and Rove.
In politics, one must figure out how to capitalize on ones strengths and exploiting the others weaknesses. If you can make your opponents strengths look bad too, then that is icing on the cake! There is nothing evil in this. It is what you do if you want to win. You don’t have to lie, cheat, or do anything unethical either.
So then you lead into your example of Kerry vs. Bush’s service record. You label Bush as one who ducked service and Kerry as a war hero. That is an out right mischaracterization if not a lie in it’s self!
Kerry spent a few months in Vietnam after being sent home from some very minor wounds. This “war hero” you tout then proceeded to attend anti-war rallies where they disgraced the service, his uniform, and the troops still serving in Vietnam. Kerry lied about war atrocities he accused his fellow troops of. Kerry the “war hero” threw his medals (or whatever story you are going with about whose medals he threw or just his ribbons…) away. That act alone is a disgrace to the uniform, the history, and the traditions of the military. This is your “war hero?”
Bush, contrary to your claim, did not duck service in Vietnam. Actually, you don’t have a shred of evidence to show that he did either. This makes your claim little better than a lie. Bush served honorably, he did his duty like the many other thousands of Reservists. His job was not an easy one. You don’t become a fighter pilot easily, especially when you are ducking service in Vietnam.
Regardless, this is an old issue. It is one that has been so scrutinized and talked about that I am amazed that any intelligent person would still be dredging over like some conspiracy nut. On top of that you label Kerry as a “war hero” in your comparison? That is the first I have seen that one done.
Moving on…
Bush has many weaknesses. I would not consider Iraq to be one of them. I am not sure what colossal failure means to you, since it is a rather subjective term, especially when you use it to describe the war in Iraq.
The public may appear to be against the war, depending on what questions you are asking them. Polls can be manipulated that way. I have no doubt that the public is indeed growing impatient with the war and would rather us not be there. However, I don’t think a majority of the people would want us to just leave knowing the consequences if we did.
The war in Iraq has had many monumental successes. I find it sad that people like you seem to be unable to find anything good and continue to portray everything there as a complete failure.
Our military destroyed the Iraqi army and removed Saddam from power in such amazingly little time. We also did it while sustaining minimal casualties. Liberals love to harp on the 4,000 troops lost so far when they all voted for this war on the pretext that the invasion alone was estimated to cost 10,000.
So, in my book we are still up. Yet the troop death toll is used as a beating stick by the left in this country.
I could continue, but I am trying not to write a book here…
You ask the question: “What has happened to good reporting?”
Well, I agree with you there. What has happened? If we had good reporting the people in this country would hear more about the good thing s happening in Iraq than the 1 minute headlines on how many people were killed.
If we had good reporting we wouldn’t be listening to Rosie O’Donnell spew conspiracy theory crap all over the ABC network about 9-11.
I could continue, but I think we are looking at that question differently.
You want to talk about context? Well, when you want it let me know. While you are still writing crap comparing Kerry as a “war hero” to Bush as ducking service you apparently have none in my opinion.
Nathan
darwinsdisciple said:
Nathan,
Sorry. Do you suppose your father ever loved you? I don't think he was capable of doing that. You can do something else with you life, if you'd accept this obvious truth. The easist things, are sometimes, the most difficult.
You'll note, my response was much shorter and more parsimonious than yours. Sorry again. The truth is always pretty simple, but also difficult.
Sorry. Do you suppose your father ever loved you? I don't think he was capable of doing that. You can do something else with you life, if you'd accept this obvious truth. The easist things, are sometimes, the most difficult.
You'll note, my response was much shorter and more parsimonious than yours. Sorry again. The truth is always pretty simple, but also difficult.
lindainks55 said:
Nathan, I understand that you've just returned from Iraq and have seen things I haven't. Would you be willing to list some of the "many monumental successes" you have seen?
It would be helpful to me if in your sharing you also share whether or not each individual success you may choose to list would have been necessary if there hadn't been American involvement in Iraq. Example: If our country's soldiers built a school, was that because a school was hit by an American bomb and needed to be rebuilt?
Thanks in advance!
It would be helpful to me if in your sharing you also share whether or not each individual success you may choose to list would have been necessary if there hadn't been American involvement in Iraq. Example: If our country's soldiers built a school, was that because a school was hit by an American bomb and needed to be rebuilt?
Thanks in advance!
Predestined said:
Linda, your first post is exactly what I posted to the Open Thread, only said much, much better than mine. Excellent!
As for Nathan's reply, I wouldn't expect less from him. Just waiting for him to answer Linda's question.
DD, I'll check the library for the book. Not that I have any time to read, and the last time I checked out books, I ended up with a $20 late fine. *grin*
As for Nathan's reply, I wouldn't expect less from him. Just waiting for him to answer Linda's question.
DD, I'll check the library for the book. Not that I have any time to read, and the last time I checked out books, I ended up with a $20 late fine. *grin*
WSClark said:
There are no answers to Linda's questions. Even right wing commentators are now saying that what Iraq needs is a dictator that can tame the warring factions.
Just like Iraq had before we invaded.
The average Iraqi feels that they were better off before the invasion.
Most telling, however, is that the vast majority (78%) of Iraqi's want us out - now.
My suggestion - have the Iraqi people vote on the occupation. If a super-majority wants us to leave, the US pulls out within ninety days.
If that vote was held today, we would be out of Iraq by the Fourth of July.
Just like Iraq had before we invaded.
The average Iraqi feels that they were better off before the invasion.
Most telling, however, is that the vast majority (78%) of Iraqi's want us out - now.
My suggestion - have the Iraqi people vote on the occupation. If a super-majority wants us to leave, the US pulls out within ninety days.
If that vote was held today, we would be out of Iraq by the Fourth of July.
Nathan said:
Linda,
I spent 7 months in Camp Falujah. It is basically right next to Baghdad. My battalion operated in one of the largest operating areas of any other battalion. This was due to our logistical nature.
The Battalion I was in ran recovery missions, security missions, resupply missions, and construction missions all over North west of Bagdhad.
Day to day operations there revealed that things are going just fine. When you see a bomb every day on TV or hear that someone was blown up all you think of is some generality of Iraq.
The truth is that many units like mine are out there operating day to day without suffering from attacks, ambushes, or IED's.
So this entire idea that we are loosing or that we are constantly being attacked is nothing more than a generality to you and others here who see nothing other than the bad news on TV.
The reality is that every day we are succesfully building things, going out and protecting communities and training Iraqi army and Police.
Your question it's self presents a false impression.
We did not attack or blow up schools unless they were strongholds of the enemy. So, I have no idea what preconceived idea you have of what damage we did, but it is not us rebuilding things we destroyed.
We have been improving things in Iraq, slowly but surely.
You might sit here and see these random statistics of who is without power or without water or whatnot, when in reality there were people in Iraq who had neither before we ever invaded.
These problems existed long before we arrived.
The terrorists had been attacking key infrastructure points for the sole purpose of creating suffering for the largest effect.
Either way, the entire idea that you are going to judge this war by the attacks and setbacks we are facing goes against all military history.
Look at every major conflict in the last 2 centries this world has fought. Every one of them has had more setbacks, more death, more damage to infrastructure than you can imagine and yet we continued and were victorious.
It is a sad statement of the inability for liberals to have a clue when it comes to fighting a war when the best they can do is call this war a "collosal failure" when we have lost barely 4,000 troops and face little more than harrasment by IED's and sniper fire.
You want to say we are loosing? How are we loosing? Because the enemey is fighting back? That is not loosing, we are fighting them. We have not lost a thing.
All of our bases our secure, we are constantly inproving our equipment and responses to IED's. We are increasing troop strength to help counter the increase in violence aroung Bagdhad. We have trained more Iraqi police and Army, both are taking more control every day.
Where are we loosing?
I would say that the fact that we invaded a country and ousted it's leader in such little time with so few losses is a monumental success.
I would say that even with all the bloodshed and chaos trying to be created by the insurgents and terrorists, the majority of people in Iraq are continuing to press forward and have what normal lives they can without things becoming total chaos.
If we leave now, we leave those people to die. We leave them to fend for themselves when we are still in the middle of helping them build up their security and infrastructure. We would leave that country with internal conflict with a country like Iran and Syria on it's borders who would have nothing standing inbetween them and whatever they felt like doing.
So, when the liberals and democrats sit here and demand withdrawl, you have no business pretending like you give a damn about what happens to those people in Iraq.
I spent 7 months in Camp Falujah. It is basically right next to Baghdad. My battalion operated in one of the largest operating areas of any other battalion. This was due to our logistical nature.
The Battalion I was in ran recovery missions, security missions, resupply missions, and construction missions all over North west of Bagdhad.
Day to day operations there revealed that things are going just fine. When you see a bomb every day on TV or hear that someone was blown up all you think of is some generality of Iraq.
The truth is that many units like mine are out there operating day to day without suffering from attacks, ambushes, or IED's.
So this entire idea that we are loosing or that we are constantly being attacked is nothing more than a generality to you and others here who see nothing other than the bad news on TV.
The reality is that every day we are succesfully building things, going out and protecting communities and training Iraqi army and Police.
Your question it's self presents a false impression.
We did not attack or blow up schools unless they were strongholds of the enemy. So, I have no idea what preconceived idea you have of what damage we did, but it is not us rebuilding things we destroyed.
We have been improving things in Iraq, slowly but surely.
You might sit here and see these random statistics of who is without power or without water or whatnot, when in reality there were people in Iraq who had neither before we ever invaded.
These problems existed long before we arrived.
The terrorists had been attacking key infrastructure points for the sole purpose of creating suffering for the largest effect.
Either way, the entire idea that you are going to judge this war by the attacks and setbacks we are facing goes against all military history.
Look at every major conflict in the last 2 centries this world has fought. Every one of them has had more setbacks, more death, more damage to infrastructure than you can imagine and yet we continued and were victorious.
It is a sad statement of the inability for liberals to have a clue when it comes to fighting a war when the best they can do is call this war a "collosal failure" when we have lost barely 4,000 troops and face little more than harrasment by IED's and sniper fire.
You want to say we are loosing? How are we loosing? Because the enemey is fighting back? That is not loosing, we are fighting them. We have not lost a thing.
All of our bases our secure, we are constantly inproving our equipment and responses to IED's. We are increasing troop strength to help counter the increase in violence aroung Bagdhad. We have trained more Iraqi police and Army, both are taking more control every day.
Where are we loosing?
I would say that the fact that we invaded a country and ousted it's leader in such little time with so few losses is a monumental success.
I would say that even with all the bloodshed and chaos trying to be created by the insurgents and terrorists, the majority of people in Iraq are continuing to press forward and have what normal lives they can without things becoming total chaos.
If we leave now, we leave those people to die. We leave them to fend for themselves when we are still in the middle of helping them build up their security and infrastructure. We would leave that country with internal conflict with a country like Iran and Syria on it's borders who would have nothing standing inbetween them and whatever they felt like doing.
So, when the liberals and democrats sit here and demand withdrawl, you have no business pretending like you give a damn about what happens to those people in Iraq.
WSClark said:
"So, when the liberals and democrats sit here and demand withdrawl"
How long, Nathan? Don't try to pussyfoot around the question with non-answers. How long is it going to take.
We were told six days, six weeks, certainly not six months. We were told the the Iraqi oil would pay for the war. We were told that the maximum cost would be $50 billion.
Don't try to bullshit your way through the "war" yada, yada, but now this is the occupation, yada, yada, etc.
We were told that this was over. We were told that "major combat operations" were over. We were told "mission accomplished."
Now don't try to bs your way through an answer.......
How much longer, Nathan?
You have said everything is going great in Iraq. The only problem is that the "liberal media" does not report all that is good in Iraq.
How much longer, Nathan? How many more lives? How much more money will Bush have to borrow?
You are right about one point, Nathan, I DON'T give a damn about those people in Iraq - I DO give a damn about the American servicemen and women and the American treasure.
....... and as an American citizen, that is my god damned right.
Thank God that the American military is under civilian control.
How long, Nathan? Don't try to pussyfoot around the question with non-answers. How long is it going to take.
We were told six days, six weeks, certainly not six months. We were told the the Iraqi oil would pay for the war. We were told that the maximum cost would be $50 billion.
Don't try to bullshit your way through the "war" yada, yada, but now this is the occupation, yada, yada, etc.
We were told that this was over. We were told that "major combat operations" were over. We were told "mission accomplished."
Now don't try to bs your way through an answer.......
How much longer, Nathan?
You have said everything is going great in Iraq. The only problem is that the "liberal media" does not report all that is good in Iraq.
How much longer, Nathan? How many more lives? How much more money will Bush have to borrow?
You are right about one point, Nathan, I DON'T give a damn about those people in Iraq - I DO give a damn about the American servicemen and women and the American treasure.
....... and as an American citizen, that is my god damned right.
Thank God that the American military is under civilian control.
lindainks55 said:
I'll read your post again tomorrow when I'm not as tired. I thought I asked a simple question. I didn't expect a lecture on many things I didn't say. I'll try to find where you answered what I asked and then I'll get back to you.
Nathan said:
WSClark,
At least you admit that you don't give a damn about the Iraqi people.
It is rather silly watching all your left wing cohorts here talk about how many Iraqi's are being killed and then wanting us to leave them.
How do you expect to even try to have an intelligent discussion when you can't even comprehend the most basic military terminology?
Major combat operations are over. We are no longer fighting what is considered to be traditional warfare with our units fighting opposing units like we were when we completely destroyed the Iraqi standing army.
The mission was accomplished. We had invaded Iraq, destroyed their army, and effectively removed Saddam from power. All those missions were accomplished. Yet here you sit pretending like you can have an intelligent conversation using this crap in your argument?
I never said that everything is going great. There have been many setbacks. What I did say was that it is no where near a "colosal failure" like some people here overexagerate.
In WWII when they had to keep selling war bonds over and over again and continue to scrape up whatever they could to fund the war I wonder what they would have said about someone like you sitting here playing the role of Lazy arm chair general?
If I could tell you exactly how things were going to happen in Iraq, If anyone could, they should be playing the lotto because they can predict the future.
Warfare has so many constantly changing parts. The best you can do is predict or hope or plan for what you anticipate to happen. It doesn't always work out.
I can tell you what I predict will happen in Iraq not what will happen.
That is exactly what has taken place over the past several years and now you think you are some genious because you can put all the little qoutes in one sentence to portray something completely out of context.
It is sad, really sad, that this is the best you can do.
At least you admit that you don't give a damn about the Iraqi people.
It is rather silly watching all your left wing cohorts here talk about how many Iraqi's are being killed and then wanting us to leave them.
How do you expect to even try to have an intelligent discussion when you can't even comprehend the most basic military terminology?
Major combat operations are over. We are no longer fighting what is considered to be traditional warfare with our units fighting opposing units like we were when we completely destroyed the Iraqi standing army.
The mission was accomplished. We had invaded Iraq, destroyed their army, and effectively removed Saddam from power. All those missions were accomplished. Yet here you sit pretending like you can have an intelligent conversation using this crap in your argument?
I never said that everything is going great. There have been many setbacks. What I did say was that it is no where near a "colosal failure" like some people here overexagerate.
In WWII when they had to keep selling war bonds over and over again and continue to scrape up whatever they could to fund the war I wonder what they would have said about someone like you sitting here playing the role of Lazy arm chair general?
If I could tell you exactly how things were going to happen in Iraq, If anyone could, they should be playing the lotto because they can predict the future.
Warfare has so many constantly changing parts. The best you can do is predict or hope or plan for what you anticipate to happen. It doesn't always work out.
I can tell you what I predict will happen in Iraq not what will happen.
That is exactly what has taken place over the past several years and now you think you are some genious because you can put all the little qoutes in one sentence to portray something completely out of context.
It is sad, really sad, that this is the best you can do.
lindainks55 said:
I read your post again tonight. I should wait to respond until tomorrow since you and I have been exchanging opinions on another post, but I will go in head first anyway.
I found LOTS of success in your post, as follows:
"The truth is that many units like mine are out there operating day to day without suffering from attacks, ambushes, or IED's.
The reality is that every day we are succesfully building things, going out and protecting communities and training Iraqi army and Police.
We did not attack or blow up schools unless they were strongholds of the enemy.
All of our bases our secure, we are constantly inproving our equipment and responses to IED's. We are increasing troop strength to help counter the increase in violence aroung Bagdhad. We have trained more Iraqi police and Army, both are taking more control every day.
the majority of people in Iraq are continuing to press forward and have what normal lives they can without things becoming total chaos."
===================
Thanks for sharing!
I found LOTS of success in your post, as follows:
"The truth is that many units like mine are out there operating day to day without suffering from attacks, ambushes, or IED's.
The reality is that every day we are succesfully building things, going out and protecting communities and training Iraqi army and Police.
We did not attack or blow up schools unless they were strongholds of the enemy.
All of our bases our secure, we are constantly inproving our equipment and responses to IED's. We are increasing troop strength to help counter the increase in violence aroung Bagdhad. We have trained more Iraqi police and Army, both are taking more control every day.
the majority of people in Iraq are continuing to press forward and have what normal lives they can without things becoming total chaos."
===================
Thanks for sharing!
gster said:
If what Nathan says is true, then why are Iraqis leaving their country by the droves to go somewhere safer? This occurrs daily there, with the educated and monied people leading the charge!
You can't have it both ways!
You can't have it both ways!
WSClark said:
A mass exodus from Iraq by the best and brightest of Iraqi society, two thirds of a trillion dollars spent on a war that was supposed to cost no more than $50 billion and 3,300 dead Americans in combat that was supposed to be casualty free.
Yep, the War on Iraq is going just great. Absolutely fantastic.
Just as the ten Americans that died this weekend.
Yep, the War on Iraq is going just great. Absolutely fantastic.
Just as the ten Americans that died this weekend.
Nathan said:
WS Clark,
Who said this war was going to be casualty free?
The estimates were that up to 10,000 troops could die on the invasion alone.
Who said the total cost would be 50 billion dollars?
That might simply be the figure for the invasion alone.
Please let us know instead of purposefully distorting and misrepresenting the facts as you like to do.
Who said this war was going to be casualty free?
The estimates were that up to 10,000 troops could die on the invasion alone.
Who said the total cost would be 50 billion dollars?
That might simply be the figure for the invasion alone.
Please let us know instead of purposefully distorting and misrepresenting the facts as you like to do.
Danny said:
Nathan,
Thanks for sharing some of this information. I'll happily take any information anybody wants to give to me. While, I still have the perception of things going not as well as they could have, and I do think that deadlines to put pressure on getting other things accomplished. It is nice to at least hear that there is some good happening there.
I don't know if a deadline for complete troop withdrawl is what is needed or more identifying the things we have left to fix, and putting deadlines on those things in order to effect a withdraw.
Thanks for sharing some of this information. I'll happily take any information anybody wants to give to me. While, I still have the perception of things going not as well as they could have, and I do think that deadlines to put pressure on getting other things accomplished. It is nice to at least hear that there is some good happening there.
I don't know if a deadline for complete troop withdrawl is what is needed or more identifying the things we have left to fix, and putting deadlines on those things in order to effect a withdraw.
Nathan said:
Danny,
Thanks for the thanks. What I would like to know is why are the Democrats jumping straight to withdrawl instead of offering better strategy and solutions?
Not only that, but if they are truely intent on this, why tack it to the troop funding?
If is pure politics at it's worst.
They offer nothing but attacks and criticism of everything (I can't think of any compliments) Bush does in Iraq. Then the only solution they offer is withdrawl in a year.
I can understand that many think or at least would like it to pressure them into fending for themselves, but first you have to be able to prove that they are purposefully delaying progress or trying to stall taking control.
How can you point to polls saying they want us to leave and at the same time try to make the argument that they are not moving as fast as they can so we will leave so now we must give them deadlines?
It is so easy to sit here and say that they could move faster if we placed a deadline on them, but no tell me why?
What is it that you think the Iraqi's could do to speed this up?
Lets focus on helping them acheive that instead of threatening them with our withdrawl if they don't meet deadlines. That is the worst form of motivation for a group of people who are dealing with so much.
Does that make sense?
Thanks for the thanks. What I would like to know is why are the Democrats jumping straight to withdrawl instead of offering better strategy and solutions?
Not only that, but if they are truely intent on this, why tack it to the troop funding?
If is pure politics at it's worst.
They offer nothing but attacks and criticism of everything (I can't think of any compliments) Bush does in Iraq. Then the only solution they offer is withdrawl in a year.
I can understand that many think or at least would like it to pressure them into fending for themselves, but first you have to be able to prove that they are purposefully delaying progress or trying to stall taking control.
How can you point to polls saying they want us to leave and at the same time try to make the argument that they are not moving as fast as they can so we will leave so now we must give them deadlines?
It is so easy to sit here and say that they could move faster if we placed a deadline on them, but no tell me why?
What is it that you think the Iraqi's could do to speed this up?
Lets focus on helping them acheive that instead of threatening them with our withdrawl if they don't meet deadlines. That is the worst form of motivation for a group of people who are dealing with so much.
Does that make sense?
Danny said:
Nathan,
Makes sense. Well my thoughts when I say deadlines, are identifying the areas of need(which I think we have done, attempted to do, or maybe are still doing) of fixing. Prioritize those things in order of importance. Once we do that, identify those things that we could give as jobs to Iraqi's, perhaps having them help in the rebuilding process right along us, showing that it is still their country. Perhaps instilling a sense of pride in their work and country.
Further, I think the deadlines need to be put on the things we need to fix. Sure they can slip, but I think that deadlines help to instill a sense of importance(not saying that it isn't there but I'm not sure how else to word that).
I guess, though maybe some of that is happening, but I've not read anything like that.
Makes sense. Well my thoughts when I say deadlines, are identifying the areas of need(which I think we have done, attempted to do, or maybe are still doing) of fixing. Prioritize those things in order of importance. Once we do that, identify those things that we could give as jobs to Iraqi's, perhaps having them help in the rebuilding process right along us, showing that it is still their country. Perhaps instilling a sense of pride in their work and country.
Further, I think the deadlines need to be put on the things we need to fix. Sure they can slip, but I think that deadlines help to instill a sense of importance(not saying that it isn't there but I'm not sure how else to word that).
I guess, though maybe some of that is happening, but I've not read anything like that.
Nathan said:
Danny,
That is the point I have been trying to make since day one. All the media shows us and the democrats ram down our throats is the number of dead, everytime someone dies, and everything bad.
We do have Iraqi's working with us in the rebuilding efforts.
They are contracted to build infrastructure in almost everything we do there. It is much more cost effective to pay them a few hundred dollars a month than to have the American military being taken away from security to build or paying contractors 80k a year to do it.
Basically all the manual labor is done by the Iraqi's there.
We have them working hand and hand with the contractors on base.
We are training their doctors, surgeons, Army, Police, Electricians, etc.
Don't get me wrong, a deadline for X to happen may not be a bad thing.
I am talking about a deadline for our withdrawl which is all that has been offered. That is not a solution nor will it bring about one.
Not only that, but a one year deadline? It would take most of that time for our military to figure out how to withdrawl and begin doing so which would take away from anything we were doing to help for that one year period.
Think about the logisitics of pulling out over a hundred thousand troops and their equipment while trying to continue in aiding the Iraqi's. That is supposed to make things go faster?
It makes no sense untill you start looking at the politics of it. That is what the democrats are doing.
If they were serious about a solution for Iraq they would be sitting down and offering suggestions. Instead they tack on a withdrawl demand to the funding. Politics plain and simple.
That is the point I have been trying to make since day one. All the media shows us and the democrats ram down our throats is the number of dead, everytime someone dies, and everything bad.
We do have Iraqi's working with us in the rebuilding efforts.
They are contracted to build infrastructure in almost everything we do there. It is much more cost effective to pay them a few hundred dollars a month than to have the American military being taken away from security to build or paying contractors 80k a year to do it.
Basically all the manual labor is done by the Iraqi's there.
We have them working hand and hand with the contractors on base.
We are training their doctors, surgeons, Army, Police, Electricians, etc.
Don't get me wrong, a deadline for X to happen may not be a bad thing.
I am talking about a deadline for our withdrawl which is all that has been offered. That is not a solution nor will it bring about one.
Not only that, but a one year deadline? It would take most of that time for our military to figure out how to withdrawl and begin doing so which would take away from anything we were doing to help for that one year period.
Think about the logisitics of pulling out over a hundred thousand troops and their equipment while trying to continue in aiding the Iraqi's. That is supposed to make things go faster?
It makes no sense untill you start looking at the politics of it. That is what the democrats are doing.
If they were serious about a solution for Iraq they would be sitting down and offering suggestions. Instead they tack on a withdrawl demand to the funding. Politics plain and simple.
Loading....