http://www.nypost.com/seven/02072007/po ... rials_.htm
A COWARDLY CONGRESS . . .
February 7, 2007 -- President Bush Monday survived the first attempt by congressional Democrats to undermine the U.S. mission to Iraq - a bid to declare "no confidence" in his ongoing troop surge.
So far, so good.
But the Democrats, busy little beavers as always, are readying another effort to score political points at the expense of the president's strategy - and America's fighting forces, too.
Senate Democrats could muster only 49 of the 60 votes they needed to invoke cloture, cutting off a GOP filibuster of a symbolic resolution that would have expressed disagreement with the troop-surge plan.
Senate GOP leaders were prepared to let the resolution move forward - if Democrats agreed to permit votes on two measures more supportive of the president. No deal, said the Dems.
Actually, that's just as well.
Any resolution - short of an unambiguous endorsement of the troop surge - would be irresponsible.
Besides, Democrats (and Republicans who side with them) just had their chance forcefully to oppose the war.
If they have a beef with the Bush strategy, why did they overwhelmingly vote to confirm the nominations of Gen. David Petraeus as chief U.S. commander in Iraq, and of Adm. William Fallon to head the overall U.S. effort in the region? Those officers not only endorse the troop surge, they're the ones charged with carrying out the policy.
As Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), who remains a beacon of light on Iraq, told his colleagues: "We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in Gen. Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle."
Worse still, those pushing for this resolution - which would have no actual practical effect on the war effort - fail to appreciate its potential impact on the troops now risking their lives in Iraq.
Indeed, said Lieberman, the Library of Congress confirmed that "never before, when American soldiers have been in harm's way, fighting and dying in a conflict that Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a resolution like this, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy."
Professing support of U.S. troops is meaningless in the face of such a resolution, he added: "When we renounce their mission, it does not support our troops." (Excerpts of his must-read speech appear on the opposite page.)
Yes, Congress has a role to play in the debate over Iraq. But war cannot be waged by committee - or by playing either to election results or the latest public-opinion polls.
If the Democrats truly oppose this strategy, they need to defund it - and then accept the consequences.
Fat chance.
By endorsing the Petraeus and Fallon appointments, Congress has by extension also endorsed the mission they've been dispatched to accomplish.
Undercutting the effort with wrongheaded resolutions is at once dishonorable and cowardly.
Bottom line: Congress sent Petraeus and Fallon off to war. Does it now mean to shoot them in the back?
A Cowardly Congress
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
How do you define cowardly?
Would it be the congress person who votes against the Bush Surge?
I am sure you, Marco, a man who sits home without any risk to life and limb, can easily answer this question with the total confidence and integrety of Dick Cheney.
Joe
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS NOT THE LEADERS WHO MISLEAD THEM!!!!!!!!!
Would it be the congress person who votes against the Bush Surge?
I am sure you, Marco, a man who sits home without any risk to life and limb, can easily answer this question with the total confidence and integrety of Dick Cheney.
Joe
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS NOT THE LEADERS WHO MISLEAD THEM!!!!!!!!!
i have a sister-in-law who is afflicted with 'HIGH-ANXIETY!! -Disorder' (well, at least that's My take on it, being a mel brooks fan ).
when she drives, drives Anywhere, she only makes right hand turns - crossing traffic is just too stressful for her. really, it's true. (in her defense, she has one son who graduated from harvard and another who is an m.d.)
i suspect you and she share a peculiar aberration, but for different reasons.
i'm guessing YOU probably have even gone so far as to have the LEFT hand turn signals removed from your vehicles.
with your wacko-marc-o-doodle view of life, you probably find even such a remote association as That to be offensive.
left hand turns? For-Get-It! that would be akin to pandering, bordering on appeasement!
(just the humor thing at this time - 'still been resisting any national/international news. people blowin up? not that I know of, i been at the mall. soon i'll also be sleep walking - err, i mean, i'll be able to fall in step.)
when she drives, drives Anywhere, she only makes right hand turns - crossing traffic is just too stressful for her. really, it's true. (in her defense, she has one son who graduated from harvard and another who is an m.d.)
i suspect you and she share a peculiar aberration, but for different reasons.
i'm guessing YOU probably have even gone so far as to have the LEFT hand turn signals removed from your vehicles.
with your wacko-marc-o-doodle view of life, you probably find even such a remote association as That to be offensive.
left hand turns? For-Get-It! that would be akin to pandering, bordering on appeasement!
(just the humor thing at this time - 'still been resisting any national/international news. people blowin up? not that I know of, i been at the mall. soon i'll also be sleep walking - err, i mean, i'll be able to fall in step.)
garyDevan
Joe,
You say you support the troops....really?????
The new generals and the President want to send reinforcements to support the troops and their mission, but many libs do not want to send in reinforcements to support the troops already there.....how is that supporting the troops already there ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
God forbid that the strategy might be successful and the enemy loses !!! That victory would be a positive for Bush. You libs want to lose the war so that it hurts Bush. You don't give a damn about the troops, fighting terrorism, or supporting our allies in Iraq.
Like Lieberman (a life-long Dem) said: this is the first time in history that a Congress is passing a resolution against a battlefield strategy, ie sending in reinforcements.
Do you support police by telling them not to enforce laws?
Do you support firemen by telling them not to fight fires?
Do you support doctors by telling them not to perform life-saving procedures?
Do you support troops by telling them not to fight wars, or to fight wars without reinforcements when needed?
I think the whole "I support the troops but not their mission" mantra is completely bogus and intellectually void (and yes misleading).
Marco
PS: Gary, I make left turns all the time...no anxiety problems on my end...I am sleeping very well thanks.
You say you support the troops....really?????
The new generals and the President want to send reinforcements to support the troops and their mission, but many libs do not want to send in reinforcements to support the troops already there.....how is that supporting the troops already there ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
God forbid that the strategy might be successful and the enemy loses !!! That victory would be a positive for Bush. You libs want to lose the war so that it hurts Bush. You don't give a damn about the troops, fighting terrorism, or supporting our allies in Iraq.
Like Lieberman (a life-long Dem) said: this is the first time in history that a Congress is passing a resolution against a battlefield strategy, ie sending in reinforcements.
Do you support police by telling them not to enforce laws?
Do you support firemen by telling them not to fight fires?
Do you support doctors by telling them not to perform life-saving procedures?
Do you support troops by telling them not to fight wars, or to fight wars without reinforcements when needed?
I think the whole "I support the troops but not their mission" mantra is completely bogus and intellectually void (and yes misleading).
Marco
PS: Gary, I make left turns all the time...no anxiety problems on my end...I am sleeping very well thanks.
Well, since you asked:
I want police to protect me from strong-arm robbery and burglary - not from speeding. That's a fact - and most people, based on their opinions clearly expressed with their right feet, agree. And I want them to be respectful to the citizens they SERVE (not rule) - like English bobbies and Spanish Guardia Civil - these are tough guys and they will SHOOT you if you don't stop when they flag you down, but they salute long-haired hippies who ask for directions (true personal story).
I want doctors to cure or palliate my diseases - and if they can't, I want them to help me die comfortably and on my own terms, not some lawyer-induced protocol. And I can do without diagnosis by television as practiced by ex-Senator/Doctor/Quack Frist.
I want firemen to put the fire out in my house - but without "destroying the house in order to save it" - busting out all the windows with fire axes, flooding the place with more water than is really necessary.
Do you get the picture here? I want the services, but it's not a binary yes-or-no decision - I want nuance, judgment, common sense. I don't have to accept anything the professionals want to dish out.
So the Democratically-led Congress is right to be skeptical about anything coming out of the mendacious Republican administration. Based only on the 6-year performance, if Bush says it, it is almost certainly wrong - on any topic, but especially Iraq. He has long-since forfeited any trust we might have had (why? he's not even an AMIABLE dunce like Reagan! he's got an ATTITUDE). The troops just want to come home. Alas, 20k more or less for 6/12/18 months will not make a lot of difference one way or the other. You can't really expect the legislative branch to come up with a coherent alternative to the executive branch's policy.
The best they could do is force some kind of fiscal discipline - you can have a war, but we're going to cut major defense acquisition programs to pay for it and really balance the damn budget. This has to happen anyway due to the train wreck of unaffordable MDAPs arriving at the same time - it ain't gonna be pretty.
Then there's the minor detail of tax policy. The Republicans remind me of the guy who orders the most expensive meal, with wine, dessert and coffee, then goes to the restroom when the bill comes - and stiffs the waitress on the tip. No wonder we chablis-and-quiche liberals disrespect them - "how gauche"! (French for "left"). - Hugh
I want police to protect me from strong-arm robbery and burglary - not from speeding. That's a fact - and most people, based on their opinions clearly expressed with their right feet, agree. And I want them to be respectful to the citizens they SERVE (not rule) - like English bobbies and Spanish Guardia Civil - these are tough guys and they will SHOOT you if you don't stop when they flag you down, but they salute long-haired hippies who ask for directions (true personal story).
I want doctors to cure or palliate my diseases - and if they can't, I want them to help me die comfortably and on my own terms, not some lawyer-induced protocol. And I can do without diagnosis by television as practiced by ex-Senator/Doctor/Quack Frist.
I want firemen to put the fire out in my house - but without "destroying the house in order to save it" - busting out all the windows with fire axes, flooding the place with more water than is really necessary.
Do you get the picture here? I want the services, but it's not a binary yes-or-no decision - I want nuance, judgment, common sense. I don't have to accept anything the professionals want to dish out.
So the Democratically-led Congress is right to be skeptical about anything coming out of the mendacious Republican administration. Based only on the 6-year performance, if Bush says it, it is almost certainly wrong - on any topic, but especially Iraq. He has long-since forfeited any trust we might have had (why? he's not even an AMIABLE dunce like Reagan! he's got an ATTITUDE). The troops just want to come home. Alas, 20k more or less for 6/12/18 months will not make a lot of difference one way or the other. You can't really expect the legislative branch to come up with a coherent alternative to the executive branch's policy.
The best they could do is force some kind of fiscal discipline - you can have a war, but we're going to cut major defense acquisition programs to pay for it and really balance the damn budget. This has to happen anyway due to the train wreck of unaffordable MDAPs arriving at the same time - it ain't gonna be pretty.
Then there's the minor detail of tax policy. The Republicans remind me of the guy who orders the most expensive meal, with wine, dessert and coffee, then goes to the restroom when the bill comes - and stiffs the waitress on the tip. No wonder we chablis-and-quiche liberals disrespect them - "how gauche"! (French for "left"). - Hugh
And another thing! (Rant follows.) I deeply resent those who call themselves "conservatives" for abusing the title. I'm a cultural conservative: I think knowledge of the Latin and Greek classics in their original languages should still be a prerequisite for higher education.
But what really seems to motivate the "social conservatives" is a gnawing suspicion that someone, somewhere is having more and better sex than they are: gays, liberals, their 17-year-old daughters... And we ARE! With their daughters! It just drives them nuts! This is what they have in common with al-Qa'ida: they all believe we are luring their daughters into our hot-tubs and converting them into lesbians. And it makes them crazy because they desperately want to have sex with 17-year-olds of either gender, too! My plan is to do everything to promote this fantasy. At some point the Puritans' brains will explode just like the aliens' in "Independence Day" - FOOM! green stuff all over the inside of their clear helmets! - Hugh
But what really seems to motivate the "social conservatives" is a gnawing suspicion that someone, somewhere is having more and better sex than they are: gays, liberals, their 17-year-old daughters... And we ARE! With their daughters! It just drives them nuts! This is what they have in common with al-Qa'ida: they all believe we are luring their daughters into our hot-tubs and converting them into lesbians. And it makes them crazy because they desperately want to have sex with 17-year-olds of either gender, too! My plan is to do everything to promote this fantasy. At some point the Puritans' brains will explode just like the aliens' in "Independence Day" - FOOM! green stuff all over the inside of their clear helmets! - Hugh
and i logged on with my own Sam Kinnesson routine (the comic, remember him ?) already prepared! darn! oh well, i'll post anyhow...(that rant thing - beautifully timed/executed, if you don't mind my saying. i'd read your first post earlier and had noted its spare articulate thoroughness...then BAM! WHAP! SOCKO! like a batman cartoon.
-------------------------------
this will be anticlimatic
-------------------------------------
the thing is this marco,
you were probably right all along , in essence, about one of your original core contentions. i'll give you a minute to catch your breath, though, by now, you probably know better than to relax just yet.
in a way, it Does boil down to a lot of 'us' being a bunch of Bush 'haters'.
of course, 'we' took/take issue with your penchant for removing All sublety and nuance (borrowing there
from any and all concept/argument/discussion.'our' thing being that That is Exactly what the whole friggin discussion is/should be about.
but, of course, i'm wasting my breath there, so i'll move on.
your "hate" is our "the guy is a friggin dangerous dick-head".
whatever we, the country, need to do regarding terrorism/war/iraq/housefires/yellowy wax buildup...
GW (and his posse) was/is/has become/will Be
the first and biggest obstacle
in the way of accomplishing Anything.
period.
so yes, you were right.
just sort of an aside, but, Not hating the guy would be akin to being able to not hate the guy who just murdered your whole family and threatens to take out your whole community of children.
it's mainly an intellectual construct for the purpose of...hell, i don't know,
but that's why i found that amish community's response to that schoolhouse tragedy so impressive. it was distinguished by its overall rarity.
hate or no, you Got to be rid of the problem.
...Bush Be Problem No. 1...
ya know, 'just the way I see it.
but hey, if you like what he's doing, He's your man.
YOU PSYCHOPATHIC, SYCHOPHANTIC SICKO NAZI BASTARD!
garyDevan
-
Paul Tjaden
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:28 pm
Marco writes: God forbid that the strategy might be successful and the enemy loses !!! That victory would be a positive for Bush. You libs want to lose the war so that it hurts Bush. You don't give a damn about the troops, fighting terrorism, or supporting our allies in Iraq.
Marco, If you really believe this then you truly are sick and need serious help. Our dislike of George W. Bush stems from what his disastrous policies have done to our country and the many lives that have been ended or hurt by his misguided decisions. There is not one person in this group that wouldn't cheer wildly for a "victory" in Iraq. We don't hate the man....we hate what he has done and continues to do to our country and we see more of the same ahead.
I have tried to keep your outrageously stupid remarks in perspective but when you suggest that any one of us "libs" would rather see even one more human being die just to prove Bush wrong then you have gone too far. Perhaps if you could open your eyes and see that our decisions are based on logic rather than some irrational personal hatred of George Bush then you might be taking a step towards improving our own mental health.
Paul
Marco, If you really believe this then you truly are sick and need serious help. Our dislike of George W. Bush stems from what his disastrous policies have done to our country and the many lives that have been ended or hurt by his misguided decisions. There is not one person in this group that wouldn't cheer wildly for a "victory" in Iraq. We don't hate the man....we hate what he has done and continues to do to our country and we see more of the same ahead.
I have tried to keep your outrageously stupid remarks in perspective but when you suggest that any one of us "libs" would rather see even one more human being die just to prove Bush wrong then you have gone too far. Perhaps if you could open your eyes and see that our decisions are based on logic rather than some irrational personal hatred of George Bush then you might be taking a step towards improving our own mental health.
Paul
Paul Tjaden wrote:Marco writes: God forbid that the strategy might be successful and the enemy loses !!! That victory would be a positive for Bush. You libs want to lose the war so that it hurts Bush. You don't give a damn about the troops...
I have tried to keep your outrageously stupid remarks in perspective but when you suggest that any one of us "libs" would rather see even one more human being die just to prove Bush wrong...
Paul
it's arrogance. it's gotta be. the arrogance of the truely pathetic...
they feel powerful when they are able to agitate, agravate or otherwise get a rise out of others, others who are dealing in good faith - when they are not (of course this contention Must be denied vehemenently (but then, i would myself)).
that very simple imbalance can never be overcome, and thus they luxuriate in their feeling of omnipotence, it's like playing with ants isn't it marco? if things settle down too much, just throw a fire cracker at the nest - check back later. watch them scurry. way cool! (used to like pulling wings off flies, didn't you?)
regardless of whether they are cynically and rationally aware of what they are doing, or rationally aware and feeling that their ends justify their means, or righteously commissioned by god to do whatever is necessary - that feeling just can't be beat.
oh hell, i'm getting tired, we've been down this road before.
i'm sometimes startled by the raw wrathful words that are thrown his way.
i don't know why.
really, once you know what you know, the only available responses come down to:
"seek help"
or
"GO FUCK YOURSELF"
but i admit, sometimes i Have been guilty of seeing if i can find a novel way of getting to the asshole!
like when he just gives up and tries to carry his schtik to a new thread, excited that he has a new head to mess with! eh 'Hunter'?:D
garyDevan
Marco, Marco, Marco. Have you forgotten? President Bush said mission accomplished on board the aircraft carrier when the "war" was over(almost 4 years ago). What this Republican regime has lost is the peace and there is no way to bring it back. 20,000, 100,000 troops just isn't ever going to bring it back. Sad part is Bush and crowd has done all this on our grandchildren's credit card and cause thousands of Americans to be maimed and killed.
Bring all the troops home from Iraq.
Your reply to my question (which you again did not answer) was not civil or accurate.
Joe
Bring all the troops home from Iraq.
Your reply to my question (which you again did not answer) was not civil or accurate.
Joe
Gary,deveil wrote: the thing is this marco,
you were probably right all along , in essence, about one of your original core contentions.
in a way, it Does boil down to a lot of 'us' being a bunch of Bush 'haters'.
whatever we, the country, need to do regarding terrorism/war/iraq/housefires/yellowy wax buildup...
GW (and his posse) was/is/has become/will Be
the first and biggest obstacle
in the way of accomplishing Anything.
period.
so yes, you were right.
hate or no, you Got to be rid of the problem.
...Bush Be Problem No. 1...
thank you for your candor and forthrightness. I am sure many of your lib buddies believe as you do, ie Bush is Problen #1 ( not Al-Qaeda, GWOT, etc) just don't have the courage to say so. And because of this belief, they are working to defeat Bush in any way possible, including to secure a defeat in Iraq, which is why they don't want to send reinforcements there....it might work, and that would help Bush (never mind that it would be good for America, Iraq, the Middle East, and the world in general).
Paul,
Are you paying attention to this post. You might think my remarks are outrageous and stupid, but the above post, and Hugh's post in the "terrorists want Dem victory" where he states that the war is already lost....no chance for victory, we just need to admit it....are examples of exact points I have been promulgating.
Joe,
Bush never said "mission accomplished"....that was a sign that the crew of the carrier hung after its successful completion of its war duties just prior to returning to their home port. Quite to the contrary, Bush stated clearly in the speech onboard that carrier that much more work needed to be done. If you can find me a transcript where he states "mission accomplished", I'd be happy to see it.
Marco
Paul, I realize that some libs, like yourself, are not deep seated Bush-haters and try to be circumspect, but it certainly seems that the Bush-Haters are well represented on this list, and logic is rarely voiced or utilized by these guys.Paul Tjaden wrote: There is not one person in this group that wouldn't cheer wildly for a "victory" in Iraq.
Perhaps if you could open your eyes and see that our decisions are based on logic rather than some irrational personal hatred of George Bush then you might be taking a step towards improving OUR own mental health.
Paul
I am glad that you can readily admit that you guys need improvement of your mental health
....admitting the problem is the first step towards self-improvement, to which I am happy to be contributing toward your therapy, once again free of charge. So Paul, after the US helps the Iraqi democratic forces achieve final victory in Iraq, I am counting on you to cheer wildly and help me to point out to our libs buds here on the list that BUSH WAS RIGHT and your lib Bush-Haters were wrong. Would that make them dumber than Bush??? Yes it would and that will require additional therapy to resolve.
Don't worry guys....I will be here for you in your time of crisis.
Marco
why do i want the terrorists to win?
because i hate bush.
why do i hate bush?
because i want the terrorists to win.
why do i want the terrorists to win?
because i hate bush.
why do i hate bush?
because i want the terrorists to win.
why do i want the terrorists to win?
because i hate bush.
why do i hate bush?
because i want the terrorists to win.
why do i want the terrorists to win?
because i hate bush.
why do i hate bush?
because i want the terrorists to win.
why do i want the terrorists to win?
because i hate bush.
why do i hate bush?
because i want the terrorists to win.
why do i want the terrorists to win?
because i hate bush.
why do i hate bush?
because i want the terrorists to win.
because i hate bush.
why do i hate bush?
because i want the terrorists to win.
why do i want the terrorists to win?
because i hate bush.
why do i hate bush?
because i want the terrorists to win.
why do i want the terrorists to win?
because i hate bush.
why do i hate bush?
because i want the terrorists to win.
why do i want the terrorists to win?
because i hate bush.
why do i hate bush?
because i want the terrorists to win.
why do i want the terrorists to win?
because i hate bush.
why do i hate bush?
because i want the terrorists to win.
why do i want the terrorists to win?
because i hate bush.
why do i hate bush?
because i want the terrorists to win.
garyDevan
okay, forget syphilis.
what we have here folks may be the first observed human manifestation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle!
roughly interpreted, this concept refers to the phenomenon whereby the very act of observing something changes that which is observed.
in this diabolical human manifestation it appears that, for the afflicted, the very act of attempting to comprehend something changes that which is to be comprehended! kahpeesh?
for now it could be referred to as the 'Reasonvoid Certainty Delusion'.
anyone know where i can get some grant money? research subjects? i mean, you know, besides the obvious.
it might even be therapeutic!
perhaps, if observed closely enough, the subject could actually be made to change!
naw, forget that, it's been tried. they only change the subject...
what we have here folks may be the first observed human manifestation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle!
roughly interpreted, this concept refers to the phenomenon whereby the very act of observing something changes that which is observed.
in this diabolical human manifestation it appears that, for the afflicted, the very act of attempting to comprehend something changes that which is to be comprehended! kahpeesh?
for now it could be referred to as the 'Reasonvoid Certainty Delusion'.
anyone know where i can get some grant money? research subjects? i mean, you know, besides the obvious.
it might even be therapeutic!
perhaps, if observed closely enough, the subject could actually be made to change!
naw, forget that, it's been tried. they only change the subject...
garyDevan
Joe,
Bush never said "mission accomplished"....that was a sign that the crew of the carrier hung after its successful completion of its war duties just prior to returning to their home port. Quite to the contrary, Bush stated clearly in the speech onboard that carrier that much more work needed to be done. If you can find me a transcript where he states "mission accomplished", I'd be happy to see it.
Marco
Marco,
You seem to have missed the admission of the Bush PR staff quite some time ago that the "Mission Accomplished" sign was the work of the Karl Rove machine eminating from White House. But facts have never been a constraint for you have they?
Joe
Bush never said "mission accomplished"....that was a sign that the crew of the carrier hung after its successful completion of its war duties just prior to returning to their home port. Quite to the contrary, Bush stated clearly in the speech onboard that carrier that much more work needed to be done. If you can find me a transcript where he states "mission accomplished", I'd be happy to see it.
Marco
Marco,
You seem to have missed the admission of the Bush PR staff quite some time ago that the "Mission Accomplished" sign was the work of the Karl Rove machine eminating from White House. But facts have never been a constraint for you have they?
Joe
Well lets look at some of liar Bush's statements in his "Mission Accomplished" speach.
“THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. “
Bush says we have prevailed = been victorious, succeeded. In other words we won, mission accomplished.
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed. (Applause.) “
Here Bush links Iraq to 9/11 which has been proven totally false. Even he admitted so under pointed questioning with Tim Russett a couple years ago. That fact has not stopped him from falsely stating a link to Al Qaeda since. Lying comes easy for George.
“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. (Applause.) “
Again. Totally false statements about Al Qaeda being and ally of Iraq. Total Fabrication. What is true was that no terrorist network would gain weapons of mass destruction from Iraq because THEY NEVER HAD ANY AND THE BUSH CROWD NEW IT FROM THE BEGINNING.
Bush and Cheney should both resign today!!!!!!!
“THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. “
Bush says we have prevailed = been victorious, succeeded. In other words we won, mission accomplished.
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed. (Applause.) “
Here Bush links Iraq to 9/11 which has been proven totally false. Even he admitted so under pointed questioning with Tim Russett a couple years ago. That fact has not stopped him from falsely stating a link to Al Qaeda since. Lying comes easy for George.
“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. (Applause.) “
Again. Totally false statements about Al Qaeda being and ally of Iraq. Total Fabrication. What is true was that no terrorist network would gain weapons of mass destruction from Iraq because THEY NEVER HAD ANY AND THE BUSH CROWD NEW IT FROM THE BEGINNING.
Bush and Cheney should both resign today!!!!!!!
so what you're implying, what you're saying, is that it would take a whole heck of a lot, nigh the impossible, to make Anyone dumber than Bush.Marco Zee wrote: ...final victory in Iraq... Would ... make them (our libs buds) dumber than Bush...
Marco
that took a lot of courage on your part and i, in turn, should thank You for Your honesty. well, probably not actual honest, more like tripping on the edge of your circular rut.
hey, You're the one who likes to play This way.
but if i may? i'd stick to that basic circular logic wheel of yours. as you can see, it can be dangerous to get too far outside your comfort zone.
ya know, a hampster in a wire wheel sometimes, itself, exhibits signs of self awareness and recognition of the futility of its behavior. but even then, it mostly just steps from the wheel and proceeds to do repetitive back flips, thinking it's accomplished something new, but still, always just landing up back in the same spot. *
*see: Americas Funniest Home Videos, Program 237, Deep Thinkers Special Edition, narrated by Richard Campbell and Allistair Cook.
garyDevan
No, I wouldn't say I hate Bush. It's more like contempt. And total lack of confidence.
Wishful thinking is not a policy. Refusing to admit the abundant evidence and the considered judgments of grown-ups from both parties will not make the fact go away: Bush has led the U.S. into a defeat the consequences of which we will live with for a generation.
I for one think there might have been a chance for a better outcome had the thing been competently executed, but since it's increasingly clear that U.S. capacity to handle such a delicate task was lacking, it would have been better to concentrate on Afghanistan, which is turning sour too.
On Lieberman: since no one really believes the surge will work, perhaps the Senate should recall Petraeus. My take is that Petraeus is the most competent general to handle the surge (which might work temporarily - that's the point: we don't have staying power) - and the subsequent inevitable drawdown and redeployment. Sure, there aren't enough troops, but no conceivable number of troops is likely succeed after we've made a dog's breakfast of the place for four years.
As in business, at some point you just have to cut your losses. Sometimes the entrepreneur is too committed to his losing proposition and the bank has to foreclose. Congress is the bank; these non-binding resolutions don't mean much, but all the pawing of the ground will clarify things and help Congress prepare for more meaningful actions. It may take the 2008 election to really get us out. That's what happened when Eisenhower got elected and pulled us out of Korea. Too bad so many fine young men and women will have to die or be maimed for nothing while the political process grinds along...
- Hugh
Wishful thinking is not a policy. Refusing to admit the abundant evidence and the considered judgments of grown-ups from both parties will not make the fact go away: Bush has led the U.S. into a defeat the consequences of which we will live with for a generation.
I for one think there might have been a chance for a better outcome had the thing been competently executed, but since it's increasingly clear that U.S. capacity to handle such a delicate task was lacking, it would have been better to concentrate on Afghanistan, which is turning sour too.
On Lieberman: since no one really believes the surge will work, perhaps the Senate should recall Petraeus. My take is that Petraeus is the most competent general to handle the surge (which might work temporarily - that's the point: we don't have staying power) - and the subsequent inevitable drawdown and redeployment. Sure, there aren't enough troops, but no conceivable number of troops is likely succeed after we've made a dog's breakfast of the place for four years.
As in business, at some point you just have to cut your losses. Sometimes the entrepreneur is too committed to his losing proposition and the bank has to foreclose. Congress is the bank; these non-binding resolutions don't mean much, but all the pawing of the ground will clarify things and help Congress prepare for more meaningful actions. It may take the 2008 election to really get us out. That's what happened when Eisenhower got elected and pulled us out of Korea. Too bad so many fine young men and women will have to die or be maimed for nothing while the political process grinds along...
- Hugh
deveil wrote: ya know, a hampster in a wire wheel sometimes, itself, exhibits signs of self awareness and recognition of the futility of its behavior. but even then, it mostly just steps from the wheel and proceeds to do repetitive back flips, thinking it's accomplished something new, but still, always just landing up back in the same spot. *
*see: Americas Funniest Home Videos, Program 237, Deep Thinkers Special Edition, narrated by Joseph Campbell and Allistair Cook.
uh oh 
i wasn't intending as such, but i think i just walked by a mirror. i gotta get out of heredeveil wrote: but, of course, i'm wasting my breath there, so i'll move on.
AND
deveil wrote: oh hell, i'm getting tired, we've been down this road before.
garyDevan
Gary, this is NOT a circular argument, as you suggest.deveil wrote:why do i want the terrorists to win?
because i hate bush.
why do i hate bush?
because i want the terrorists to win.
in a way, it Does boil down to a lot of 'us' being a bunch of Bush 'haters'
You lib Bush-Haters don't start from "I want the terrorists to win", but you do end there.
You start from "I hate Bush"........ because he stole the election, he was selected and not elected, he is an idiot, smirking, strutting, Christrian, frat boy, silver-spooned daddy's boy who cannot speak english. As you yourself have admitted, Bush is problem #1. Once you start from this perspective, teaming up with others to embarass and defeat Bush becomes easy, even if it means wanting the terrorists ( the OTHER Bush-haters) to win.
The more accurate statement for you Bush-Haters is: Because I hate Bush, I want the terrorists to win so as to defeat and embarass Bush abroad and thereby allow us libs to gain political advantage here at home.
Marco
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02172007/po ... htm?page=0
COWARDS GIVE UP ON GIS - & GIVE IN TO EVIL
February 17, 2007 -- PROVIDING aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's treason.
And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."
The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.
The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.
The message Congress just sent to them all was, "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we're going to leave - and you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."
We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage.
COWARDS GIVE UP ON GIS - & GIVE IN TO EVIL
February 17, 2007 -- PROVIDING aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's treason.
And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."
The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.
The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.
The message Congress just sent to them all was, "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we're going to leave - and you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."
We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage.