Bush supporters' aftermath thread

blatham wrote:

Quote:
The insurgents/terrorists in Iraq are determined and motivated, and IMO encouraged by the negative nattering nabobs around the world.

A C- idea, marked down to a D for the inclusion of a cliche that tired.

But then agains it's just my opinion. -- Did you want me to start grading yours?

0 Replies

Ticomaya- Blotham doesn't know that Canada, his country, has not gotten a D but an F. The Chicago Sun-Times reports on Nov. 25th that Prime Minister Paul Martin's government has been toppled because of "corruption". I am reliably informed that the critical failure occured because the Canadians spend too much time criticizing governments like ours they know nothing about and don't take care of their own problems.

0 Replies

I don't think Keltic Wizard keeps up with the news.

If he had, he would remember the report given by Charles Duelfer, US chief weapons inspector, in Oct. 2004. In that report, Duelfer succinctly framed Hussein's modus operandi. Duelfer also said Hussein's scheme to parlay oil for food into the end of UN sanctions nearly worked. We know now that Russia and France, who received billions from the oil for food scheme had no intention of attempting to stop Hussein.

And, after all, the leader of the Western world, said:

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region and the SECURITY OF THE WORLD"

That is a strong unambigious statement which is a warning to the rest of the world.

Of course, that warning came from President Bill Clinton on Dec. 16th 1998.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:
Quote:
The insurgents/terrorists in Iraq are determined and motivated, and IMO encouraged by the negative nattering nabobs around the world.

A C- idea, marked down to a D for the inclusion of a cliche that tired.

But then agains it's just my opinion. -- Did you want me to start grading yours?

You have the wrong training and degree. But please feel free to spring to my defence on all legal matters.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

I don't think Keltic Wizard keeps up with the news.

If he had, he would remember the report given by Charles Duelfer, US chief weapons inspector, in Oct. 2004. In that report, Duelfer succinctly framed Hussein's modus operandi. Duelfer also said Hussein's scheme to parlay oil for food into the end of UN sanctions nearly worked.
That is a strong unambigious statement which is a warning to the rest of the world.

Isn't a warning about Saddam Hussein in October 2004 a little silly, considering that he had been in US custody for nearly a year?

The inspectors were on the ground. they not only had access to all facilities, They had access to private houses and farms. Without prior notice. If they were granted that access in the US, it would be against the constitution.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I don't recall any "walk in the park" rhetoric, and certainly did not think it would be one.

First-there was the interview with a high ranking officer shortly before the invasion, where he said that Saddam Husein has three weeks to live, tops. I saw this on TV myself.

Second, how about this little tidbit from an interview our Vice President-certainlya spokesman for the Administration.

Quote:

Cheney, March 16, 2003: Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . .

Q: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

See that? cheney is telling us that all we have to do is show up and poof!-the Iraqis will get rid of Saddam for us.

If that is not walk-in-the-park rhetoric, I don't know what is.

0 Replies

Third, how about this report released in November of 2002-several months before the invasion.

Quote:

War Plan For Iraq Is Ready, Say Officials

Quick Strikes, Huge Force Envisioned by Pentagon

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 10, 2002; Page A01

The Bush administration has settled on a plan for a possible invasion of Iraq that envisions seizing most of the country quickly and encircling Baghdad, but assumes that Saddam Hussein will probably fall from power before U.S. forces enter the capital, senior U.S. military officials said.

Hedging its bets, the Pentagon is also preparing for the possibility of prolonged fighting in and around Baghdad. Administration war planners expect that, even if the Iraqi president is deposed from power, there could be messy skirmishes there and in Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, the military officials said......

......"The point is that if things don't go as we hope, there will be enough forces on hand to deal with it," said one Defense Department official who was briefed on the plan late last month.

The dual nature of the U.S. war plan is designed to encourage Iraqis to revolt against Hussein. As an administration official put it in a recent interview, the plan aims to "create the conditions" under which Iraqis can do that. "I think ultimately this is more of a revolution that's going to happen, rather than something brought about by U.S. military power," he said.

To create those conditions, the U.S. invasion would begin with a series of simultaneous air and ground actions and psychological warfare operations, all aimed at destroying the security police and other institutions that help Hussein hold on to power. [continued]

Oh, the article has a few disclaimers saying that there might be some messy skirmishes here and there, but nothing that says this thing is going to be particularly hard for any real length of time.

Heck, they virtually implying that's a fifty-fifty chance our arrival will simply spark a revolution that will take care of Saddam for us.

No question this administration, apart from a few throwaway disclaimers, promoted this upcoming war as something easy and quick.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

The insurgents/terrorists in Iraq are determined and motivated, and IMO encouraged by the negative nattering nabobs around the world.

Of course they are. How could they not be?

They cannot possibly defeat us militarily anymore than the North Vietnamese could have. They have but one strategy for victory: Hang on long enough for the will of the American people to crumble.

Only the self-deluded or idiotic believe that the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq are not emboldened by signs of our weakening will.

Pulling our troops out now only makes sense if one believes that no matter what we do, the worst is inevitable for Iraq. If this is the case, then the death of even one more American soldier is a waste.

Any attempt to argue that pulling out now (or within 6 months) will somehow benefit Iraq is at best ignorant and at worst terribly cynical.

Blatham, whether you and your fellow peaceniks like it or not, the louder your cries for withdrawal, the more hope the insurgents will have. You may not care, or you may accept it as an unfortunate necessity, but to deny it is incredibly dishonest.

It is also a grim reality that if we pull out now, the 2000 or more American lives that have been lost will have been wasted.

0 Replies

US civil rights group to sue CIA
A US civil rights groups says it is taking the CIA to court to stop the transportation of terror suspects to countries outside US legal authority.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says the intelligence agency has broken both US and international law.

It is acting for a man allegedly flown to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she'll comment on recent reports of alleged CIA prisons abroad before starting a visit to Europe on Monday.

Ms Rice has said she will provide an answer to a EU letter expressing concern over reports last month alleging the US intelligence agency was using secret jails - particularly in eastern Europe.

'Extraordinary rendition'

"The lawsuit will charge that CIA officials at the highest level violated US and universal human rights laws when they authorised agents to abduct an innocent man, detain him in incommunicado, beat him, drug and transport him to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan," the ACLU said in a news release.

The release identified the jail as the "Salt Pit".

The group did not provide the name or nationality of the plaintiff, saying only that he would appear at a news conference next week to reveal details of the lawsuit.

The ACLU also wants to name corporations which it accuses of owning and operating the aircraft used to transport detainees secretly from country to country.

The highly secretive process is known as "extraordinary rendition" whereby intelligence agencies move and interrogate terrorism suspects outside the US, where they have no American legal protection.

It has become extremely controversial, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington reports.

Some individuals have claimed they were flown by the CIA to countries like Syria and Egypt, where they were tortured.

The US government and its intelligence agencies maintain that all their operations are conducted within the law and they will no doubt fight this case vigorously, our correspondent says.

He says they will not want to see US intelligence officers forced publicly to defend their actions and they will not want to see one of their most secret procedures laid bare in open court.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4494246.stm

Published: 2005/12/03 02:50:23 GMT

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

.....the louder your cries for withdrawal, the more hope the insurgents will have. You may not care, or you may accept it as an unfortunate necessity, but to deny it is incredibly dishonest.

Okay, let me get this straight.

The President commits the country to war for fictional reasons, (WMD's), then deceives the country about what to expect when the war actually starts.

Then, when the deceptions are revealed, we are advised that we dare not speak out against it because we are "emboldening" the enemy.

If there is one person responsible for America's growing disgust with this whole enterprise, it is George Bush Jr who thought he could soft soap the country into a war, and then keep it going once the deceptions are revealed because it was a fait accompli.

He was wrong.

0 Replies

kelt, Bushies are good at guilt trips for those that would criticize this administration and their incompetence. Bushco keeps talking about 9-11 as if it's connected to Saddam and our war on terrorism - and to protect the American People.

You're doing a good job of bring it back to the basics; Bush got us involved in this unnecessary war in Iraq, and now Bushies wants to blame the peaceniks for the problems. Go figure.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

.....the louder your cries for withdrawal, the more hope the insurgents will have. You may not care, or you may accept it as an unfortunate necessity, but to deny it is incredibly dishonest.

Okay, let me get this straight.

The President commits the country to war for fictional reasons, (WMD's), then deceives the country about what to expect when the war actually starts.

Then, when the deceptions are revealed, we are advised that we dare not speak out against it because we are "emboldening" the enemy.

If there is one person responsible for America's growing disgust with this whole enterprise, it is George Bush Jr who thought he could soft soap the country into a war, and then keep it going once the deceptions are revealed because it was a fait accompli.

He was wrong.

You don't have it straight.

You have the right to speak out against whatever governmental transgression you perceive. You are not a traitor if you do so. You should not be put in jail if you do so. But if you do so, intellectual honesty demands that you acknowledge the very real consequences of your speaking out.

Your moral calculus may tell you that demanding the withdrawal of American forces supersedes the fact that it emboldens the insurgents, but have the honesty to acknowledge that it emboldens the insurgents.

What you cannot have is your cake and eat it too.

Argue that we should pull out now. I will vociferously disagree, but will not challenge your right to argue such a point. Argue that by pulling out now we will not embolden the insurgents and I will counter that you are at best a fool and at worst a liar.

0 Replies

On what basis do you presume that criticizing this administration emboldens the insurgents?

Don't forget; the whole world community criticizes this administration.

0 Replies

Most Americans now see the war as a mistake, with 52 per cent agreeing the US should withdraw immediately or within a year, according to a CNN/Gallup poll.

0 Replies

Bush cited 120 Iraqi army and police battalions ``in the fight against terrorists,'' including 40 that are taking leading roles; 30 army battalions taking ``primary control'' in their areas of operations; standardized training for army and police officers.

``Iraqi units are growing more independent and more capable,'' Bush said. ``They are defending their new democracy with courage and determination.''

Bush repeated his vow that U.S. troops won't be pulled out of Iraq on ``artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.'' The decision will be based on advances by the Iraqis and the judgment of U.S. military commanders, he said.

``We will never accept anything less than complete victory,'' Bush said. ``Our goal is to train enough Iraq forces so they can carry the fight, and this will take time and patience.''

Beyond Training

The issue of preparing Iraqi forces goes beyond the numbers of troops and police officers, said James Dobbins, director of the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center, a policy research organization in Arlington, Virginia.

``If Iraqi forces fail it won't be because they are inadequately trained and equipped,'' Dobbins said. ``It will be because they are not responding to a government which is capable of directing them.''

Lugar, who has generally supported the president, said even if the Iraqi forces are capable, the U.S. still will need to ensure that the country has a functioning government and a stable economy that can pay for its own security and rebuild the infrastructure. Otherwise, Iraq is at risk of being split up among competing Shiite, Sunni and Kurd factions.

``The transfer of authority is not simply a numerical one in which a number of competent people are built up,'' he said.

The president needs to consult more with lawmakers on his plan, Lugar said, and Bush will have to ``spell that out some more in subsequent speeches that he has promised.''

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

On what basis do you presume that criticizing this administration emboldens the insurgents?

Don't forget; the whole world community criticizes this administration.

On the basis of common sense and logic.

The insurgents cannot defeat America's military.

The insurgents can only win when when there is no organized military force (American or Iraqi) to oppose them.

The insurgents are counting on America to cut and run.

Criticism of the Administration, per se, may not embolden the insurgents but an increasing cacophony for immediate withdrawal will.

The scope of the criticism of this Administration is largely irrelevant. A million people arguing for the wrong result should be no more persuasive than one hundred.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Most Americans now see the war as a mistake, with 52 per cent agreeing the US should withdraw immediately or within a year, according to a CNN/Gallup poll.

Which means what?

0 Replies

It means, Finn, that most Americans have read the news and will continue to read the news and will continue to be polled.

It means that after the December 15th elections and the gradual take over of the last four provinces, with, of course, the backing of the 90 or 100 thousand American troops with Armor, Air Power and Special Forces, the American people will be told that half the US troops have been withdrawn by the end of August 2006.

It means, Finn, that the Democrats will not have a prayer in 2006.

As Ruben Navarette has written in his syndicated column from the Washington Post Writers Group:

"By working both sides of the street, playing to both the anti-war base of the Democratic party and those swing voters who still feel uneasy about the prospect of an immediate withdrawal, Democrats run the risk of pleasing no one...If you bank on the opposition party messing things up so badly that you don;t have to lift a finger to win, the Democrats will find that strategy rarely works. If al you do is criticize the other side while sending MIXED MESSAGES as to what you really support, then you really have nothing. And in politics, those who offer nothing tend to lose out to those who offer something...When the country is at war, you can't play both sides against the middle.Democrats have a choice to make. They can come up with a new strategy for how to talk about Iraq or they can get used to coming in second."

0 Replies

I find Cicerone's comment most illuminating:

"Most Americans now see the war a mistake, with 52 percent agreeing the US should withdraw immediately OR WITHIN A YEAR"

The last four words speak volumes about the Poll!!!!

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

The insurgents/terrorists in Iraq are determined and motivated, and IMO encouraged by the negative nattering nabobs around the world.

Oh man, this rhetoric is so old James Thurber made fun of it as far back as in the fifties. And I'm sure there are earlier satires about it.

In 'Further Fables of our times' (1956), James Thurber wrote:

The Peacelike Mongoose

In cobra country a mongoose was born one day who didn't want to fight cobras or anything else. The word spread from mongoose to mongoose that there was a mongoose who didn't want to fight cobras. If he didn't want to fight anything else, it was his own business, but it was the duty of every mongoose to kill cobras or be killed by cobras.

'Why?' asked the peacelike mongoose, and the word went around that the strange new mongoose was not only pro-cobra and anti-mongoose but intellectually curious and against the ideals and traditions of mongoosism.

'He is crazy,' cried the young mongoose father.
'He is sick,' said his mother.
'He is a coward,' shouted his brothers.
'He is a mongoosexual,' whispered his sisters.

Strangers who had never laid eyes on the peacelike mongoose remembered that they had seen him crawling on his stomach, or trying on cobra hoods, or plotting the violent overthrow of Mongoosia.

'I am trying to use reason and intelligence,' said the strange new mongoose.

'Reason is six-seventh of treason,' said one of his neighbours.

'Intelligence is what the enemy uses,' said another.

Finally the rumour spread that the mongoose had venom in his sting, like a cobra, and he was tried, convicted by a show of paws, and condemned to banishment.

Time to think of something new to accuse us of.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know