Iraq Briefing Brings More Confusion

[Gan]

Iraq Briefing Brings More Confusion


Wednesday's much-hyped briefing for lawmakers by Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, began and ended in much the same way as any discussion of Iraq does on Capitol Hill these days: in confusion.

Just hours before the House voted on a $124 billion Iraq funding bill that includes a March 31, 2008, "goal" for pulling most U.S. troops out of Iraq, Republicans left the classified briefing encouraged by what Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte had to say.

Many Democrats, though, remained unmoved by what they heard, demonstrating that they continue to have little or no faith in President Bush and his top military and civilian advisers, or in their plans for operations in Iraq.

"They are all talking off the same script, which is a White House script," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), who has strongly backed the March 2008 withdrawal date. Bush has promised to veto any Iraq bill with a withdrawal timeline or restrictions on his conduct of the war.

And, while saying he "deeply appreciated" the briefing, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) later pledged that the House would pass the spending bill with the timetables.

"Our troops are mired in a civil war," Hoyer said. "The American people want and deserve a Congress that holds the Iraqis accountable."

Some Democrats said they understood the difficulty Petraeus had in answering some of the panel's questions.

"As (Petraeus) said, it's a difficult, complex situation," said Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), who met with the general during a trip to Iraq last week. Ellsworth said Democrats want "direct answers on what is going on there, but it is just not possible for (Petraeus and other military officials) to give them."

But Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) disagreed. "I thought they were very direct. They were very straight, … very candid."

LaHood said that although Petraeus did not specifically address the debate on the Iraq spending bill, he asked for more time to let his counter-insurgency plan work. Petraeus is directing a surge in U.S. forces in Baghdad and surrounding regions designed to give the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki time to facilitate political reconciliation between rival Sunni and Shiite groups.

The surge is the central piece in Bush's larger strategy for Iraq, but most Democrats, as well as a majority of Americans, oppose the plan.

"What all of us need to do is be patient and give (Petraeus) time to carry out the plan," LaHood said.

"All I know is everybody in Washington heard the clock ticking," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), referring to the political struggle between the White House and Democratic leaders over the Iraq bill. "People who want to live under a Democratic government in Iraq also hear that clock ticking."

Petraeus faced questions from Hoyer and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), as well as Reps. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, according to several lawmakers who attended the briefing.

In a press conference just before the briefing, Hunter called on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to “resign his position” because Reid had said that the “war is lost” last week. Reid has refused to back down in face of White House criticism for his remark.

Hunter and other Republicans also criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for not attending the briefing, although Pelosi did speak with Petraeus by phone for about 30 minutes on Tuesday.

But just as Hunter made his call for Reid to step down, anti-war protestors who had staked out the hallway of the Rayburn House Office Building, where the Petraeus briefing was taking place, began to shout him down, screaming at Hunter, “What does success look like in Iraq?”

They followed Hunter, who is seeking the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, down the hallway to the Armed Services Committee, all the while berating him.

About a dozen anti-war protestors, including several members of the group “Code Pink,” as well as Cindy Sheehan, who lost a son in Iraq, berated lawmakers and military officials as they went into briefing.

One protestor blocked Negroponte, screaming that the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq was a “war criminal.” Negroponte briefly reversed course and walked away from the committee rooms before being escorted inside by police and his security team.

Other protestors tried to grab lawmakers’ arms while urging them to “Bring the troops home now.” Protestors latched onto Petraeus himself, but his security detail quickly ushered the general into the committee’s offices.

Afterward, Hoyer said the briefing reinforced his belief that the solution in Iraq must be a political solution for the Iraq government.

He said he asked Petraeus about Defense Secretary Robert Gates' recent observation that the debate in Congress gave the U.S. military more leverage to negotiate with Iraqi leaders. "It certainly seemed to me that Gen. Petraeus did not object," Hoyer said.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told reporters there was "nothing new" in Petraeus' briefing to senators later on Wednesday.

Levin also raised concerns about an upcoming two-month recess of the Iraqi parliament, which he said would further delay political reconciliation in the troubled country.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services panel, called the briefing "a sober assessment" of the difficulties facing U.S. forces in Iraq.

For his part, Petraeus promised to return to Capitol Hill next fall to brief lawmakers again.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/
_________________________________________

1. Where the fuck was Pelosi and why didnt she feel that this meeting wasnt important enough for her presence?

2. I agree that Petraeus needs more time to let his military plans work before judging them successful or unsuccessful.

3. Nice to see Sheehan is still at it. :banghead:

4. This bears repeating:

Petraeus is directing a surge in U.S. forces in Baghdad and surrounding regions designed to give the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki time to facilitate political reconciliation between rival Sunni and Shiite groups.

[Back]

5 years, thousands dead, billions spent, no end in sight. Hear that? The fat lady is singing.

[Gan]

By Joe Lieberman
Thursday, April 26, 2007; A29



Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800799.html) killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians -- innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school.

If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism.

Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus's security strategy has failed and that the war is "lost."

And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq.

This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there.

What is needed in Iraq policy is not overheated rhetoric but a sober assessment of the progress we have made and the challenges we still face.

In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi Sunnis -- particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency.

This progress is real, but it is still preliminary.

The suicide bombings we see now in Iraq are an attempt to reverse these gains: a deliberate, calculated counteroffensive led foremost by al-Qaeda, the same network of Islamist extremists that perpetrated catastrophic attacks in Kenya, Indonesia, Turkey and, yes, New York and Washington.

Indeed, to the extent that last week's bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al-Qaeda.

Whether we like it or not, al-Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.

Al-Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. It is trying to kill as many innocent people as possible in the hope of reigniting Shiite sectarian violence and terrorizing the Sunnis into submission.

In other words, just as Petraeus and his troops are working to empower and unite Iraqi moderates by establishing basic security, al-Qaeda is trying to divide and conquer with spectacular acts of butchery.

That is why the suggestion that we can fight al-Qaeda but stay out of Iraq's "civil war" is specious, since the very crux of al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq has been to try to provoke civil war.

The current wave of suicide bombings in Iraq is also aimed at us here in the United States -- to obscure the recent gains we have made and to convince the American public that our efforts in Iraq are futile and that we should retreat.

When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.

Even as the American political center falters, the Iraqi political center is holding. In the aftermath of last week's attacks, there were no large-scale reprisals by Shiite militias -- as undoubtedly would have occurred last year. Despite the violence, Iraq's leadership continues to make slow but visible progress toward compromise and reconciliation.

But if tomorrow Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds were to achieve the "political solution" we all hope for, the threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq would not vanish.
Al-Qaeda, after all, isn't carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn't to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table -- along with everyone seated at it.

Certainly al-Qaeda can be weakened by isolating it politically. But even after the overwhelming majority of Iraqis agree on a shared political vision, there will remain a hardened core of extremists who are dedicated to destroying that vision through horrific violence. These forces cannot be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. They must be defeated.

The challenge before us, then, is whether we respond to al-Qaeda's barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do -- abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for last week's atrocities -- or whether we stand and fight.

To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win.

The writer is an independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502410.html
____________________________________________

I never EVAR thought I would say this about anything Lieberman had to say...

I'm fucking impressed.

:clap:

[Stanley Burrell]

By Joe Lieberman
Thursday, April 26, 2007; A29



Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800799.html) killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians -- innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school.

If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism.

Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus's security strategy has failed and that the war is "lost."

And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq.

This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there.

What is needed in Iraq policy is not overheated rhetoric but a sober assessment of the progress we have made and the challenges we still face.

In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi Sunnis -- particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency.

This progress is real, but it is still preliminary.

The suicide bombings we see now in Iraq are an attempt to reverse these gains: a deliberate, calculated counteroffensive led foremost by al-Qaeda, the same network of Islamist extremists that perpetrated catastrophic attacks in Kenya, Indonesia, Turkey and, yes, New York and Washington.

Indeed, to the extent that last week's bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al-Qaeda.

Whether we like it or not, al-Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.

Al-Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. It is trying to kill as many innocent people as possible in the hope of reigniting Shiite sectarian violence and terrorizing the Sunnis into submission.

In other words, just as Petraeus and his troops are working to empower and unite Iraqi moderates by establishing basic security, al-Qaeda is trying to divide and conquer with spectacular acts of butchery.

That is why the suggestion that we can fight al-Qaeda but stay out of Iraq's "civil war" is specious, since the very crux of al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq has been to try to provoke civil war.

The current wave of suicide bombings in Iraq is also aimed at us here in the United States -- to obscure the recent gains we have made and to convince the American public that our efforts in Iraq are futile and that we should retreat.

When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.

Even as the American political center falters, the Iraqi political center is holding. In the aftermath of last week's attacks, there were no large-scale reprisals by Shiite militias -- as undoubtedly would have occurred last year. Despite the violence, Iraq's leadership continues to make slow but visible progress toward compromise and reconciliation.

But if tomorrow Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds were to achieve the "political solution" we all hope for, the threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq would not vanish.
Al-Qaeda, after all, isn't carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn't to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table -- along with everyone seated at it.

Certainly al-Qaeda can be weakened by isolating it politically. But even after the overwhelming majority of Iraqis agree on a shared political vision, there will remain a hardened core of extremists who are dedicated to destroying that vision through horrific violence. These forces cannot be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. They must be defeated.

The challenge before us, then, is whether we respond to al-Qaeda's barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do -- abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for last week's atrocities -- or whether we stand and fight.

To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win.

The writer is an independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502410.html
____________________________________________

I never EVAR thought I would say this about anything Lieberman had to say...

I'm fucking impressed.

:clap:

Except when 72 Chinese workers died yesterday in an Ethiopian Oil Field as a news footnote: Lieberman might as well begin making rhetoric about Darfur's non-existent casualties. What a schmuck. Misrepresenting the Independent party, bah.

The world's "existence" is defined disgustingly more finite by the hawkish.

His:


Whether we like it or not, al-Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.

Seriously makes me think that it would be the greatest thing in the world if our troops could be pushed non-violently through peaceful protest (et al. al-Sadr, i.e.) to help facilitate our soon-to-be-vetoed troop withdrawal. Not to mention this statement's painfully ringing hypocrisy by thinking two centimeters outside the box making me giggle :-\

[Latrinsorm]

5 years, thousands dead, billions spent, no end in sight. Hear that? The fat lady is singing.Because if anyone has a firm grasp of military tactics and situations it's a bunch of civilians with axes to grind, right? We definitely shouldn't listen to the general guy, what could he possibly know that we don't?

[Gan]

Remember, he's just a shill because he works for GW. /sarcasm

[Stanley Burrell]

Because if anyone has a firm grasp of military tactics and situations it's a bunch of civilians with axes to grind, right? We definitely shouldn't listen to the general guy, what could he possibly know that we don't?

Some job he's done, eh? :rolleyes:

Certain generals (and Texas Air National Reserve) people also believe that we're "winning the war."

[Parkbandit]

Am I the only one that remembers what happened when we were forced to leave Vietnam because the Liberal pussies in this country used the media to persuade the ignorant populace into believing we couldn't win, so we need to get out? How many millions died due to us pulling the French surrender maneuver?

History has a way of repeating itself.. especially when the libs use the same exact playbook.

[TheEschaton]

Yanno what? I'm still waiting for that whole domino effect thing since we've left Vietnam.


Huh.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Yanno what? I'm still waiting for that whole domino effect thing since we've left Vietnam.


Huh.

-TheE-

Might want to educate yourself on what happened after the US pulled out of Vietnam, before you make light of it.

[Stanley Burrell]

Yanno what? I'm still waiting for that whole domino effect thing since we've left Vietnam.


Huh.

-TheE-

Dunno if you're into cinematography at all, but this is definitely a cool title if you're into college discussion-type subtitled Indies:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/cyclo/cycposter.jpg

[TheEschaton]

Oh yeah, I forgot, PB, the entire world was consumed by Communism. Damn it.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

Parkbandit's not big on the whole history thing. That stuff requires thinking and it doesn't have enough spin on it for him. He can't copy it from the Drudge Report or talk radio, either.

[Parkbandit]

Parkbandit's not big on the whole history thing. That stuff requires thinking and it doesn't have enough spin on it for him. He can't copy it from the Drudge Report or talk radio, either.

Ah.. so we surrendered in Vietnam, came home and everything was hunky dory.

You must be staying at TheE's fantasy world. You two make a cute couple.

[Warriorbird]

Well, no, nothing's ever fine. We aren't speaking Russian like predicted, however. We didn't surrender...the South Vietnamese did.

Eerie parallel, that... or do you think we should have stayed in Vietnam too? Oh, wait, you're not a historian.

Now, how many four stars have we gone through in Iraq? I'm sure one of you Republicans can Google that. Patraeus was the only "qualified" person left. He's doing his job...trying to justify things for his Commander in Chief.

[Back]

Now, how many four stars have we gone through in Iraq? I'm sure one of you Republicans can Google that. Patraeus was the only "qualified" person left. He's doing his job...trying to justify things for his Commander in Chief.

Thank you for posting some reality. I feel bad for Patraeus. We should start a pool on his retirement. 2 months? 6 months? Sooner the better so I say 3.

[sst]

Except
Seriously makes me think that it would be the greatest thing in the world if our troops could be pushed non-violently through peaceful protest (et al. al-Sadr, i.e.) to help facilitate our soon-to-be-vetoed troop withdrawal. Not to mention this statement's painfully ringing hypocrisy by thinking two centimeters outside the box making me giggle :-\

Wow, you really have no idea what kind of "protests" Al-Sadr puts on do you?
God your a fucking retard. How is the pill popping going for you?

[Parkbandit]

Well, no, nothing's ever fine. We aren't speaking Russian like predicted, however. We didn't surrender...the South Vietnamese did.

Eerie parallel, that... or do you think we should have stayed in Vietnam too? Oh, wait, you're not a historian.

Now, how many four stars have we gone through in Iraq? I'm sure one of you Republicans can Google that. Patraeus was the only "qualified" person left. He's doing his job...trying to justify things for his Commander in Chief.

Do you even know what happened after we left Vietnam? Any clue at all? From your post, I would say no.

[Warriorbird]

We clearly became a Communist country...just like the theory claimed. The world was overcome.

While it may not be a graduate degree...I do have a bachelor's in history. I studied the period pretty extensively.

Way to dodge answering the questions though.

[Latrinsorm]

As rabid as PB has been lately, he's right in that it's staggeringly inaccurate and ethnocentric (especially coming from Eschaton) to evaluate how the Vietnam War ended solely in terms of what happened to Americans or American ideologies, rather than (for instance) what happened to the Vietnamese.

[TheEschaton]

Because PB cares so much about the Vietnamese. I was arguing the American side because he seems to only care what happens to America. ;)

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

We clearly became a Communist country...just like the theory claimed. The world was overcome.

While it may not be a graduate degree...I do have a bachelor's in history. I studied the period pretty extensively.

Way to dodge answering the questions though.


You are saying I dodged YOUR question? WHAT? Has every fucking liberal on these boards all of a sudden become MORE stupid lately?

Let's do a review.. for the simpletons out there.

Post #8 - Me.


Am I the only one that remembers what happened when we were forced to leave Vietnam because the Liberal pussies in this country used the media to persuade the ignorant populace into believing we couldn't win, so we need to get out? How many millions died due to us pulling the French surrender maneuver?

History has a way of repeating itself.. especially when the libs use the same exact playbook.

TheE then evades the question, saying:


Yanno what? I'm still waiting for that whole domino effect thing since we've left Vietnam.


Huh.

-TheE-

I bring it right back to him, telling him to educate himself on the end of the war.

TheE retorts:


Oh yeah, I forgot, PB, the entire world was consumed by Communism. Damn it.

-TheE-

Warriorbird return quip something stupid (as usual)

I allude that maybe WB and TheE are gay lovers in a fantasy world built by TheE. Warriorbird responds:


Well, no, nothing's ever fine. We aren't speaking Russian like predicted, however. We didn't surrender...the South Vietnamese did.

Eerie parallel, that... or do you think we should have stayed in Vietnam too? Oh, wait, you're not a historian.

Now, how many four stars have we gone through in Iraq? I'm sure one of you Republicans can Google that. Patraeus was the only "qualified" person left. He's doing his job...trying to justify things for his Commander in Chief.

I asked you if you had any idea what happened after Vietnam.. you respond:


We clearly became a Communist country...just like the theory claimed. The world was overcome.

While it may not be a graduate degree...I do have a bachelor's in history. I studied the period pretty extensively.

Way to dodge answering the questions though.

The only one dodging the question is you.

Pulling out of Vietnam was bad.

O'RLY? WE R NOT COMMUNISTS!

[Ilvane]

I wish we could just get some peace over there. It doesn't seem too hopeful.

Angela

[Atlanteax]

I wish we could just get some peace over there. It doesn't seem too hopeful.

Angela

Perhaps someday when it's all anglo-saxons over there!

Just like how the English brought peace of 250+ years (and going) to the North American continent after some troublesome local rabble were dealt with.

[Sean of the Thread]

5 years, thousands dead, billions spent, no end in sight. Hear that? The fat lady is singing.

Well look on the good side.. at least you don't have to walk to work.

[Seran]

I think ParkBandit should educate us all on what happened in Vietnam after we left, as it is so vital that we know, and he is of course well versed in this matter.

Or you can just keep telling everyone to find out for themselves, whichever you think will fool people into thinking you know wtf you're talking about.

[Parkbandit]

I think ParkBandit should educate us all on what happened in Vietnam after we left, as it is so vital that we know, and he is of course well versed in this matter.

Or you can just keep telling everyone to find out for themselves, whichever you think will fool people into thinking you know wtf you're talking about.


And it's this type of ignorance that allows the liberal party to even exist.

Stick your head in the sand man... everything will be ok.

[Seran]

Thought so.

[Parkbandit]

And it's this type of ignorance that allows the liberal party to even exist.



Thought so.

Holy shit, I agree with you in a political thread.

[Mabus]

pussies in this country used the media to persuade the ignorant populace into believing

If we quote just that it reaks of what the Bush administration did to get us into this War, no?

[Parkbandit]

If we quote just that it reaks of what the Bush administration did to get us into this War, no?

No... except if you just use moveon.org and the dnc.org websites for your 'news' information.

[Warriorbird]

"Pulling out of Vietnam was bad."
-Parkbandit

Priceless.

[Mabus]

No... except if you just use moveon.org and the dnc.org websites for your 'news' information.

So what got us into this war, Mr. Parkbandit?

We know that the plan by administration officials for war with Iraq pre-dated 9-11. We know the amount of information that was put forth to push for the war. We know that information that was clearly known not to be true, and much information that was considered "doubtful", by the intelligence community was spoon-fed as truth to the "liberal" media in order to (in your words about Vietnam) "to persuade the ignorant populace into believing" that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the USA.

Obviously you feel that lying, propaganda and deception are fine based on if the party is the one you support.

I do not fear the word liberal, nor the word liberty or the rootword "liber", even though I am not a liberal. I would no more use moveon.org then I would quote Faux News. Both are emblematic of the current political problem in America, the belief that every issue is red/blue or black/white.

We could compare Vietnam and Iraq if you want. I am sure you could come up with nice little one-sentence quips that you would find very humorous while others and I posted facts.

To stay on topic...
I was against the attack on Iraq. I did not believe then that it would be an easy or short conflict. I also did not believe that we should preemptively attack another nation without a clear mandate from the United Nations unless we had a damn good reason.

I do support staying until the job is done. We screwed it up, and to leave it a chaotic mess to me would be unbecoming of our country. I can only hope that those in power will figure out a solution to the mess they have gotten us in.

[Parkbandit]

So what got us into this war, Mr. Parkbandit?

We know that the plan by administration officials for war with Iraq pre-dated 9-11.

Assumption.


We know the amount of information that was put forth to push for the war.

Assumption.


We know that information that was clearly known not to be true

Assumption.


and much information that was considered "doubtful", by the intelligence community was spoon-fed as truth to the "liberal" media

Assumption.



Obviously you feel that lying, propaganda and deception are fine based on if the party is the one you support.

Assumption.



I am sure you could come up with nice little one-sentence quips that you would find very humorous while others and I posted facts.

Please start posting facts and maybe we can start debating. So far, you've provided the readers with nothing more than simple moveon.org bullet points that are based upon conjecture or nothing at all.

I see alot of you making an Ass out of yourself.. and not alot of anything factual.

[Parkbandit]

"Pulling out of Vietnam was bad."
-Parkbandit

Priceless.


"I have a 1" penis"
-Warriorbird

Wow, making up quotes CAN be fun.

[Stanley Burrell]

Ah.. so we surrendered in Vietnam, came home and everything was hunky dory.

You must be staying at TheE's fantasy world. You two make a cute couple.

Sylvester Stallone saved the world from those pinko commie bastards, dur.

[Warriorbird]

Uhm, Parkbandit...what exactly was that quote doing in post 22 then?

GTFO...or at least edit to cover for yourself.

[Parkbandit]

Uhm, Parkbandit...what exactly was that quote doing in post 22 then?

GTFO...or at least edit to cover for yourself.

If I really thought you were this retarded and couldn't read AND comprehend a post, I would have put you on ignore years ago... as it's not nice to pick on those who really have a learning disability. While I don't believe you to actually be mentally retarded, I do believe you to be extremely ignorant.

Maybe it's close enough?

[Warriorbird]

Given it was you continuing to not respond to the initial posting and, well, just try to dodge things again...I decided to quote what was not obviously sarcasm.

The only reason I posted was you, in effect, claiming the domino theory made sense...

Me explaining the post Vietnam world really didn't have much to do with you still being wrong regarding that.

[Back]

Yeah, this ”surge” (escalation of ineptitude) is working alright. The death tolls keep climbing.

This administration said Major Combat Operations were over 4 years ago.

[Kriztian]

Exit strategy, anyone?

[Gan]

Yeah, this ”surge” (escalation of ineptitude) is working alright. The death tolls keep climbing.

This administration said Major Combat Operations were over 4 years ago.

Because of people like you requiring an answer and an immediate solution RIGHT THEN AND THERE!!!

Sorry, I dont buy the 'BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED' routine. The new general says that he needs time to set his plan in motion and to see positive results. Every time politicians broadcast this strategy along with fettering timelines it just handicaps his efforts and undermines our success. Congress has created the ultimate armchair quarterback - we'll call it the new and improved armchair general.

I'm beginning to think the isolationist movement is right. Perhaps we do need to just withdraw all of our politicians, armed forces, and diplomats, shut off all the foreign aid and humanatarian aid and just close the doors to the country and tell everyone to fuck off. Because the American people definately dont have the patience, fortitude, nor the stomach to stand as a world leader. Even then, when the fight is brought to us by those who do have the stomach for it, most of us seem to either lose interest or put the blame back on us - 'we caused it, so we deserve what we get!'. :(

[sst]

Yeah, this ”surge” (escalation of ineptitude) is working alright. The death tolls keep climbing.

This administration said Major Combat Operations were over 4 years ago.

Speak for yourself Backlash, Car Bombings may be up here in Baghdad and the outskirts, but we are finding less people who were bound and gagged then shot in the head after having their fingers and genitals removed and holes drilled throughout their body with a power drill.

Remember Islam is the religion of peace.

[sst]

On top of that Fuck you all who are criticizing the work we are going here. Fuck every last one of you. You don't know half the shit that the soldiers here are going though to make this whole fucking place safer for John and Jane Iraqi.

The stryker brigade, is working its ass off as the main effort to secure this god forsaken city right now. We just finished with our first set of 35 days straight combat operations and having captured well over 400 terrorists, thousands of weapons, and tons of explosives, within the city, allowing thousands of families to move back into their homes. I think we as a whole are doing a pretty damn good job. The 82 with units from our brigade have pushed into Sadr City and is slowly securing it inch by inch and gunfight by fucking gunfight, and you say nothing is being accomplished?

Most of the Sunni terrorists have fled out of the city, and Oh wait We are on the offensive against them as well having sent a Stryker Battalion up to Daliya provence who again much like Sadr City is securing the area in by fucking inch gunfight by fucking gunfight. For all of you, any of you to sit there and say nothing is being done, there is no success being made irritates me to no end. You have no idea, what is going on in this country, and you never will. So shut up until you get your ass over here and see with your own eyes, I don't care how or why, be in the military work for a NGO, work for KBR, Blackwater, Triple Canopy, whoever you want, but keep your fucking mouths shut about the job we are doing and the success we are "not" having until you at least have an educated opinion, instead of one from some pundit or comedian on TV.

I think i said fuck enough in there to get my point across.

[Parkbandit]

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/stfu5.jpg

[Warriorbird]

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/halli_coffe.jpg

I'm not particularly getting how the surge is conservative. Isolation would be. Up with Nationalism!

How long has America been there, Dave? How long have the other major wars lasted that we've been in this century? You make jokes about Islam being the religion of peace and you're handing the country to a bunch of Shiites (clearly the most peaceful people in the world) and everybody's gunning for Iran (clearly Shiite).

Why exactly is it taking "fucking inch gunfight by fucking gunfight." after this long? Aren't we the greatest military force in the entire world?

Of course...it isn't a civil war. I don't need to be in Iraq to know any of these things.

[Parkbandit]

[IMG]
Why exactly is it taking "fucking inch gunfight by fucking gunfight." after this long? Aren't we the greatest military force in the entire world?



Because pussy liberals like you question every single thing the military does.. so they can't actually get in and do their job without you tying their hands behind their back.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/Pilots.jpg

[Mabus]

Assumption.

Let us "assume" you can read Wolfowitz and others, in their own words.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm


Assumption.
The recent posts on the Frontline piece, and the piece itself, would allow all but the most clueless and rabid supporters of "Party before country" people to see. As I am unsure from your postings whether you are either just a forum troll or a "Party before country" person I must admit you may remain ignorant.

In the case that you are just an ignornant troll no facts or arguments will suffice. You will read a post looking for a specific comment to quote and then when prodded give no response. Secondarily, you will attempt to evade by changing the subject or by simplistic attacks that have absolutely nothing to do with the post or poster.

So if it is your belief that the administration did not try to sell the Iraq War policy through the media then please post that, rather then the handy little anti-intellectual one word quips. You are capable of that, no?


Assumption.

The "yellow cake" documents were a known fraud, by our intelligence sources (CIA and DoS) and were called "dubious" by the IAEA. After the now debunked "16 words" spoken by GW the White House itself issued a statement calling the possibility of truth "inconclusive" and said "these 16 words should never have been included" in the State of the Union speech. So, are you stating that our intelligence agencies and the White House are lying?

Our own Senate, at the time under GOP control, issued a report:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

From that report:
"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

So if you do not believe the GOP Senate and feel they are lying to you, or using unfounded "assumptions" as well, please back it up with facts, k?


Assumption.
Read Judith Miller stories pre-war. If that does not convince you consider the amount of "Secret" and "Top Secret" information leaked in support of the war, pre-war. This from an administration that prides itself on no leaks.

You really live in some fantasy.


Assumption.

Yes, believing that you are for "Party over country" and against any idea that actually uses facts is an assumption, but it is one that is based on your posts.

Take your belief that I have even read moveon.org. This is clearly some attempt to label me, and is entirely untrue. I have little use for any of the rhetoric and spin from either side.

Many people these days see your type of attitude, that your "picked side" is always correct, as just plain stupid. Political parties are never always right. Conservatism and Liberalism are never always correct.


Please start posting facts and maybe we can start debating. So far, you've provided the readers with nothing more than simple moveon.org bullet points that are based upon conjecture or nothing at all.

Project for a New American Century and government sites are now run by moveon.org? Just say "Clinton" three times fast and all your problems will melt away...

Got any of that kool-aid left?


I see alot of you making an Ass out of yourself.. and not alot of anything factual.

There was that not-so-witty quip you substitute for fact and thought! I knew you could do it!

[sst]

Why exactly is it taking "fucking inch gunfight by fucking gunfight." after this long? Aren't we the greatest military force in the entire world?

Of course...it isn't a civil war. I don't need to be in Iraq to know any of these things.

Politics and diplomacy (which just manages to delay the inevitable) allowed for there to be a stronghold in areas of Baghdad and outside that American Troops were not allowed to go into.
Also thanks to liberal pussies who get all up in arms about collateral damage we are unable to fight a war how it should be fought, with overwhelming force, the real American way.

That answer your question as why its going that way warriorbird?

[Warriorbird]

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/whistle.jpg

"Because pussy liberals like you question every single thing the military does.. so they can't actually get in and do their job without you tying their hands behind their back."

"Also thanks to liberal pussies who get all up in arms about collateral damage we are unable to fight a war how it should be fought, with overwhelming force, the real American way."

Right...because I have everything to do with the military, Parkbandit. This war has been incredibly well funded up to this point. In case you forget...you had a Republican Congress and a Republican President for most of it. WTF is going on, then?

Seems to me like "overwhelming force" which we did have in the beginning did absolutely nothing to defeat the other side of the civil war there, Dave. Of course...conservatives love to ignore examples like Northern Ireland and the former Yugoslavia and the Russian adventures in Afghanistan.

[sst]

Um, It did work, then we started playing the be nice to everyone card and stuff went to shit.

The few times we were allowed to use real military tactics in Iraq since Ive been here were huge successes. The battle for Hifia street which was a Sunni stronghold, ended with zero American casualties and over 150 terrorists dead. Zarqa ended with 300+ dead and 412 captured. You would be amazed how easy it is to break the back of the enemy if you're hands are not tied behind your back when you get into a fight. They don't fear the strykers, or call them the 'Dirty Unit" for nothing in this city. But the strykers play by different rules and its only one brigade. There are a whole lot here who have to play nice since they own a battle space, and thats the hard they have been given.

[Daniel]

Fallujah I + II.

[sst]

I was not there for them Daniel, and don't know the measures taken to secure the area after the battles were complete. I do know currently Fallujah is relatively safe compared to other areas. If we have to go though anbar, we drive though Fallujah instead of around it since there is less of an IED threat inside the city than on the bypass. But my only experence there is having to drive through to respond to something or other in anbar.

[TheEschaton]

War....HUH....Good God, y'all....What is it good for?


ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/whistle.jpg

"Because pussy liberals like you question every single thing the military does.. so they can't actually get in and do their job without you tying their hands behind their back."

"Also thanks to liberal pussies who get all up in arms about collateral damage we are unable to fight a war how it should be fought, with overwhelming force, the real American way."

Right...because I have everything to do with the military, Parkbandit. This war has been incredibly well funded up to this point. In case you forget...you had a Republican Congress and a Republican President for most of it. WTF is going on, then?

Seems to me like "overwhelming force" which we did have in the beginning did absolutely nothing to defeat the other side of the civil war there, Dave. Of course...conservatives love to ignore examples like Northern Ireland and the former Yugoslavia and the Russian adventures in Afghanistan.

When I say "you" WB, I don't mean individually you.. I mean you as your demographic of liberal pussy, a club to which you clearly belong. I also don't mean "we'll" as in I am actually in Iraq with Dave. Hope that cleared up the confusion on your part.

And it makes zero difference who is or who is not in power.. it has to do with the liberal media, blowing shit out of proportion to promote their own ideals of how war should be waged. There was more media attention about how we were 'torturing' poor, 'innocent' Iraqis than there was beheadings, stringing up contractors on a bridge or dragging dead service men through the street.

Media is a very powerful industry.. able to promote individual ideas and sway public opinion however they want.

PS - I'm out of pics in my library :( You win

[Parkbandit]

War....HUH....Good God, y'all....What is it good for?


ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

-TheE-

So. Do tell.

9-11 just happened. You are the President. What Would TheE Do? (WWTED)

[Daniel]

I was not there for them Daniel, and don't know the measures taken to secure the area after the battles were complete.


Fallujah I = Marines went in to kick ass. Got over confident and didn't secure their rear. Got ass kicked.

Fallujah II = We leveled the fucking city. Insurgents just went elsewhere. Killed alot of people for no reason. Fallujah and Anbar in general still a shit hole.

I'm bringing these up to illustrate that it is not just an issue of using the military to do what it is supposed to do. The fight in Iraq has never just been about how many people you can kill and how many people you can detain. It's been about rebuilding a country that has been devastated over the last 25 years and not alienating the local populace in the process so they wouldn't A) Fight us or B) facilitate outsiders to fight us.

The simple fact of the matter is that we have been failing in both of these tasks. Iraq as a country is no better off today than it was when we went in. I won't get into the argument about whether it's worse or it's better in some regards. The reality is that it's still a shit hole and people, American and Iraqi, are still dying by the hundreds.

These security operations can only buy us time. However, the true measure of success is what we do with that time, and the simple fact is that we haven't been doing a whole lot. Or rather, we haven't been doing enough.

[sst]

rebuilding has failed, its just money wasted. They need to figure out how to do things on their own instead of having everything handed to them.

When I go into a house and listen to people complain about somebody from X side threatening them, I first ask "do you have an AK and 50 rounds of ammo?" the response is always yes, Then "Were you in the military and did you learn to shoot one?" of course again the answer is yes 90% of the time, then I ask "why didn't you defend yourself?" I never get a good response for that.

[Daniel]

rebuilding has failed, its just money wasted. They need to figure out how to do things on their own instead of having everything handed to them.

When I go into a house and listen to people complain about somebody from X side threatening them, I first ask "do you have an AK and 50 rounds of ammo?" the response is always yes, Then "Were you in the military and did you learn to shoot one?" of course again the answer is yes 90% of the time, then I ask "why didn't you defend yourself?" I never get a good response for that.

If rebuilding has failed, then the war has failed. What exactly are you fighting for then Dave?

[TheEschaton]

I would of sent troops in, in force, to extract Osama Bin Laden from Afghanistan. Preferably to bring him to trial in the West somewhere, but, if he resisted - oh well. Dismantle the Taliban? Eh, I dunno, considering how awful the Northern Alliance is. I would stop funding the Taliban, though.

I would dismantle Al Qaeda in that country (which, I suppose, is akin to dismantling the Taliban, so sure, why not), sure as HELL not be such close bedfellows with Pakistan, and instead be closer friends with India, with whom I'd put more political pressure on Musharraf to dismantle Al Qaeda in his own country.

Then, I would reassess our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and come to the conclusion that we don't need them, let alone want them, in our foreign affairs. Yes, we'd take an economic hit as we severed ties with them, but they would suffer more, and again, have to assess whether supporting Wahhabi Islam is worth it on the global stage.

IOW, the exact opposite of what the President has done. Iraq wouldn't have even been on my radar, as my Sec of State and Nat. Sec. Adv. would have both made statements in the months leading up to 9/11 that Iraq was completely disarmed and helpless.

THEN, I'd sit back and wonder why my jackass predecessors: A) got in bed with the Saudis, B) funded Osama Bin Laden and then outright abandoned him, leaving him very highly trained and with a grudge against the USA, and C) funded Saddam in the first place.

Then I'd dance on Ronald Reagan's grave, cause he was an asshole.

I hope you realize I was just quoting a song. :P

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

My unprovoked invasion would have been Pakistan, as stated before, when Bin Laden fled Afghanistan, Parkbandit. I'm pretty hawkish for a Democrat, just not in regards to this particular action.

[Back]

Its already starting. The blame for anything that may go wrong with Iraq is now being rhetorically blamed on the people who are against the war, not the people who are directly accountable and responsible.

[Back]

Because of people like you requiring an answer and an immediate solution RIGHT THEN AND THERE!!!

Sorry, I dont buy the 'BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED' routine. The new general says that he needs time to set his plan in motion and to see positive results. Every time politicians broadcast this strategy along with fettering timelines it just handicaps his efforts and undermines our success. Congress has created the ultimate armchair quarterback - we'll call it the new and improved armchair general.

I'm beginning to think the isolationist movement is right. Perhaps we do need to just withdraw all of our politicians, armed forces, and diplomats, shut off all the foreign aid and humanatarian aid and just close the doors to the country and tell everyone to fuck off. Because the American people definately dont have the patience, fortitude, nor the stomach to stand as a world leader. Even then, when the fight is brought to us by those who do have the stomach for it, most of us seem to either lose interest or put the blame back on us - 'we caused it, so we deserve what we get!'. :(




Speak for yourself Backlash, Car Bombings may be up here in Baghdad and the outskirts, but we are finding less people who were bound and gagged then shot in the head after having their fingers and genitals removed and holes drilled throughout their body with a power drill.

Remember Islam is the religion of peace.

If I recall car bomb victims are not even counted in the death toll. Dave, its important you know who people like myself are criticizing about Iraq. Its not you personally and its not the guys and gals there on the ground doing everything they can to make right in this situation.

Its the people directly responsible and accountable for getting us there in the first place. Ganalon in the above post makes claims of “armchair generals” who are the cause of everything. I agree with him, but not that its the “armchair generals” who are now seeking ways to repair this, its the ones who got us into it in the first place and who now absolutely refuse to compromise or listen to anyone who offers some kind of solution.

[Parkbandit]

I would of sent troops in, in force, to extract Osama Bin Laden from Afghanistan. Preferably to bring him to trial in the West somewhere, but, if he resisted - oh well. Dismantle the Taliban? Eh, I dunno, considering how awful the Northern Alliance is. I would stop funding the Taliban, though.

I would dismantle Al Qaeda in that country (which, I suppose, is akin to dismantling the Taliban, so sure, why not), sure as HELL not be such close bedfellows with Pakistan, and instead be closer friends with India, with whom I'd put more political pressure on Musharraf to dismantle Al Qaeda in his own country.

Then, I would reassess our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and come to the conclusion that we don't need them, let alone want them, in our foreign affairs. Yes, we'd take an economic hit as we severed ties with them, but they would suffer more, and again, have to assess whether supporting Wahhabi Islam is worth it on the global stage.

IOW, the exact opposite of what the President has done. Iraq wouldn't have even been on my radar, as my Sec of State and Nat. Sec. Adv. would have both made statements in the months leading up to 9/11 that Iraq was completely disarmed and helpless.

THEN, I'd sit back and wonder why my jackass predecessors: A) got in bed with the Saudis, B) funded Osama Bin Laden and then outright abandoned him, leaving him very highly trained and with a grudge against the USA, and C) funded Saddam in the first place.

Then I'd dance on Ronald Reagan's grave, cause he was an asshole.

I hope you realize I was just quoting a song. :P

-TheE-

Yea... I saw Rush Hour.. I'm familiar with the song. :P

I just find it stupid that you would post such lyrics in this thread.. yet don't agree with them.

[ElanthianSiren]

Its already starting. The blame for anything that may go wrong with Iraq is now being rhetorically blamed on the people who are against the war, not the people who are directly accountable and responsible.

There are great quotes by King, Paine, Twain, and Einstein on selling/justifying a war; IMO one of the most telling quotes comes from the Nuremberg Trials and goes something like:

Justifying war is easy. All you have to do is convince people they'll be attacked and denounce peacemakers for lacking patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It's the same in any country. -- Herman Goering

The bottom line is that it's always been this way for the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I? side of any conflict. I'm just surprised that you're surprised by this behavior; were you making a rhetorical statement?

[TheEschaton]

It was meant to be a moment of levity, apparently it flew right past your tightly wound self.

-TheE-

[Back]

The bottom line is that it's always been this way for the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I? side of any conflict. I'm just surprised that you're surprised by this behavior; were you making a rhetorical statement?

I’m always surprised when I realize how correct Orwell was in general and how its still effective in this day and age especially here in America.

You are right of course, its been that way from the start. But my comment was specifically about this phase of our involvement and to hopefully actively point it out to people as it gets started.

[ElanthianSiren]

It was meant to be a moment of levity, apparently it flew right past your tightly wound self.

-TheE-


Be gentle with PB, TheE; he's still stewing in his poste 2006 election angst, which is naturally the right of the party that got its ass kicked. We shouldn't suffer the humiliating fate of making light of that party's potentially-prudent concerns, else we find ourselves with a laundry list of intolerent ideology. -And who knows where that might lead?!1111one

[ElanthianSiren]

But my comment was specifically about this phase of our involvement and to hopefully actively point it out to people as it gets started.

You're going to need to write a book then, IMO ;) As large as the PC is, I'm not sure you're going to have much success getting the message out to the masses here. Grassroots says I might, of course, be wrong.

[Mabus]

Please start posting facts and maybe we can start debating.

Still waiting for your answers.

[Parkbandit]

OMG! MABUS HAS REQUESTED I RESPOND IMMEDIATELY TO HIS POST! I MUST DO AS COMMANDED!!

Let me go back and read your post.. I normally skip big walls of text as it's usually a post of quantity over quality and a big ass waste of my time.

[Parkbandit]

Be gentle with PB, TheE; he's still stewing in his poste 2006 election angst, which is naturally the right of the party that got its ass kicked. We shouldn't suffer the humiliating fate of making light of that party's potentially-prudent concerns, else we find ourselves with a laundry list of intolerent ideology. -And who knows where that might lead?!1111one


LOL.

Do you really believe that I am in any way affected by any election results in 2006? How so?

Now.. 2008, you could be right. If a liberal is elected, they could very well do away with the Bush tax cuts and THEN I would be affected by an election result. The 2006 results? What exactly have they done to affect my life in any way? Passing non-binding resolutions don't keep me up at nights. Sorry.

[Parkbandit]

OMG! MABUS HAS REQUESTED I RESPOND IMMEDIATELY TO HIS POST! I MUST DO AS COMMANDED!!

Let me go back and read your post.. I normally skip big walls of text as it's usually a post of quantity over quality and a big ass waste of my time.


I was correct. Thanks for wasting my time dumbass.

[Mabus]

I was correct. Thanks for wasting my time dumbass.

So responding to your bullshit, misdirection and ignorance with facts is a waste of your time. I see.

Clearly when you are wrong you can neither admit it nor defend why you believed the inaccuracies you post.

I could get more intellectual stimulation from debating a turnip then you could ever provide. That makes you the "dumbass", pal. I pity you for it.

[Daniel]

So responding to your bullshit, misdirection and ignorance with facts is a waste of your time. I see.

Clearly when you are wrong you can neither admit it nor defend why you believed the inaccuracies you post.

I could get more intellectual stimulation from debating a turnip then you could ever provide. That makes you the "dumbass", pal. I pity you for it.

Yea. About sums it up.

[Latrinsorm]

not the people who are directly accountable and responsible.The Senate?

[Parkbandit]

So responding to your bullshit, misdirection and ignorance with facts is a waste of your time. I see.

Clearly when you are wrong you can neither admit it nor defend why you believed the inaccuracies you post.

I could get more intellectual stimulation from debating a turnip then you could ever provide. That makes you the "dumbass", pal. I pity you for it.

'Bush was planning to invade Iraq before 9-11'

-Assumption

'No it wasn't.. someone wrote a book about it!'

Your list of 'facts' are nothing more than opinions based upon book deals, personal grudges or axes to grind. Yea.. that's a great source for factual information. You may also want to check out the Enquirer and US Weekly.

Seriously, you've wasted my time with your wall of text by me even giving it consideration of reading it. Wow.. great job at Google man. Your mom should be real proud how you are able to type "Bush lied, people died' and get all those 'facts' to back up your bullshit.

I don't pity you at all. I laugh at you.

[Kranar]

So responding to your bullshit, misdirection and ignorance with facts is a waste of your time. I see.

Clearly when you are wrong you can neither admit it nor defend why you believed the inaccuracies you post.

I could get more intellectual stimulation from debating a turnip then you could ever provide. That makes you the "dumbass", pal. I pity you for it


It's Parkbandit we're talking about here... the guy has 11,000 posts of 2-3 line slogans about liberal pussies or Backlash.

If you're looking for some insightful political debates with conservatives or liberals who have more content in their posts than in their signatures... I really hate to say it but you're not likely going to find it here.

[Parkbandit]

It's Parkbandit we're talking about here... the guy has 11,000 posts of 2-3 line slogans about liberal pussies or Backlash.

If you're looking for some insightful political debates with conservatives or liberals who have more content in their posts than in their signatures... I really hate to say it but you're not likely going to find it here.

Wow... that really hurt.

Someone's still mad I chased his last admin away :(

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/lgFP1154.jpg

[Warriorbird]

It's Parkbandit we're talking about here... the guy has 11,000 posts of 2-3 line slogans about liberal pussies or Backlash.

If you're looking for some insightful political debates with conservatives or liberals who have more content in their posts than in their signatures... I really hate to say it but you're not likely going to find it here.

-Kranar

Priceless. Now you see why I get bored.

[Gan]

Its the people directly responsible and accountable for getting us there in the first place. Ganalon in the above post makes claims of “armchair generals” who are the cause of everything. I agree with him, but not that its the “armchair generals” who are now seeking ways to repair this, its the ones who got us into it in the first place and who now absolutely refuse to compromise or listen to anyone who offers some kind of solution.

Here's where we fundamentally disagree. You think that Bush et. al. refuse to listen to anyone who offers some kind of solution. I dont think you're correct in as much as I think that they are just not satisfied with the solutions that you identify with ergo you say they refuse to listen to 'all' solutions. But even thats not the crux of where we differ on this issue. Its that you view the 2006 election as a referendum against the war. Well, thats all well and good; however, our government is not designed to alter course at the ebb and flow of public opinion. We arent a representative democracy, we are a republic. The people we elected to lead us are doing just that, quit trying to shortcut the system and screw things up mid-stream.

When its specifically the leader's (that you disagree with) turn for re-election then the voters can speak. The 2006 elections did not magically alter how things are done so Congress could overrule the Executive branch on how to conduct the war. And no matter how many flags you burn between now and January 2009, its not going to alter the course unless by means of impeachment, which is not a viable option since there's nothing impeachable thats happened. If you feel different then perhaps we should cut back the term of all elected officials (including the Presidency) to every 2 years, that way it will accomodate better the shift of public opinion.

Congress can and should do everything in its power to reflect the views of its constituents. And in the proper time, if the voters still feel as they did in 2006 then they can elect a President that represents their views on the war (and other things). In the meantime, Congress should quit trying to tie up all the efforts going on in Iraq for political gain (even if politics is all about the power). Let the military do their job infettered. If by 2008 they arent succeeding when/if a new commander in chief is elected, then he has the authority and proper ability to alter the course from his/her predecessors.

[Latrinsorm]

If you're looking for some insightful political debates with conservatives or liberals who have more content in their posts than in their signatures... I really hate to say it but you're not likely going to find it here.Ha, I have no sig! I win by default! :D

-Latrinsorm

CRAP

[Warriorbird]

How many years have they had already, Ganalon? Under a combination Republican Congress and Republican President no fetters existed. I doubt your suggestion is going to find make much headway.

[Back]

Here's where we fundamentally disagree. You think that Bush et. al. refuse to listen to anyone who offers some kind of solution. I dont think you're correct in as much as I think that they are just not satisfied with the solutions that you identify with ergo you say they refuse to listen to 'all' solutions. But even thats not the crux of where we differ on this issue. Its that you view the 2006 election as a referendum against the war. Well, thats all well and good; however, our government is not designed to alter course at the ebb and flow of public opinion. We arent a representative democracy, we are a republic. The people we elected to lead us are doing just that, quit trying to shortcut the system and screw things up mid-stream.

Yes, we fundamentally disagree. Two points here. One pertains to the past, the other to the present, yet both address our differences:

The Executive branch, if you’ve been following this from the start, has ignored commissions, intelligence, its own generals, bipartisan officials, and now its about to veto funding for the troops while ignoring the majority of people who now disapprove of this war. Thats not to mention this administration has ignored all the warnings about getting into Iraq in the first place and pre-9/11 intelligence.

The second part is I see people’s votes as people’s voices on what issues in this country we live in affect us, need to be addressed and how they should be addressed. You can easily support the argument that the results of the presidential election in 2004 was the voice of America backing our executive branch in what they were doing and how they had performed up to that point.


When its specifically the leader's (that you disagree with) turn for re-election then the voters can speak. The 2006 elections did not magically alter how things are done so Congress could overrule the Executive branch on how to conduct the war. And no matter how many flags you burn between now and January 2009, its not going to alter the course unless by means of impeachment, which is not a viable option since there's nothing impeachable thats happened. If you feel different then perhaps we should cut back the term of all elected officials (including the Presidency) to every 2 years, that way it will accomodate better the shift of public opinion.

Disagree. The Executive branch is not the end all be all of American government and it surprises me that anyone would think it was. It further surprises me that anyone would support that notion as it leads to dictatorship which is why, in a sense, America was founded.

Impeachment is on the table as soon as people stop being afraid of being truly patriotic.

As far as term limits on Congress, yes, I agree. It was set this way by our founders but I am not opposed to tweaking a system to make it better. But in no way do I support supreme executive power.


Congress can and should do everything in its power to reflect the views of its constituents. And in the proper time, if the voters still feel as they did in 2006 then they can elect a President that represents their views on the war (and other things). In the meantime, Congress should quit trying to tie up all the efforts going on in Iraq for political gain (even if politics is all about the power). Let the military do their job infettered. If by 2008 they arent succeeding when/if a new commander in chief is elected, then he has the authority and proper ability to alter the course from his/her predecessors.

So the crux of our disagreement is that you think the American people should only have 4 years to have a voice, that the Executive branch is the most powerful branch and should never be hindered during its term for good or for bad and that nothing can happen to make changes in policy between now and 2008.

Thanks for being civil. Hope everyone caught Tenet on 60 Minutes tonight. If not, it should be on their website in a few days or on Google or YouTube.

[Latrinsorm]

You can easily support the argument that the results of the presidential election in 2004 was the voice of America backing our executive branch in what they were doing and how they had performed up to that point.I fail to see how 30% of the eligible population can possibly be construed as the voice of America.
The Executive branch is not the end all be all of American government and it surprises me that anyone would think it was. It further surprises me that anyone would support that notion as it leads to dictatorship which is why, in a sense, America was founded.It's not the end, but it is supposed to have powers that cannot be infringed (the same way judges aren't supposed to make laws). One of these, if you ask Ganalon, is "how to conduct the war". Do you have anything to refute that?

[Back]

One of these, if you ask Ganalon, is "how to conduct the war". Do you have anything to refute that?

Congress grants that power and pays the purse.

Now as it relates to current history, Congress granting the Executive to go to war against Iraq had stipulations. Many stipulations that were all, in my opinion, brushed aside for what we now know was a definite plan to invade despite any intelligence, recommendation not to and against the provisions to seek other routes that were provided in Congress’ approval of war as a “last resort.”

As that implies, as the branch with the fingers on the purse strings... I ask you, and anyone who knows what its like to deal with the people with their fingers on the purse strings... are there stipulations on lending? There sure as fuck are.

[Gan]

How many years have they had already, Ganalon? Under a combination Republican Congress and Republican President no fetters existed. I doubt your suggestion is going to find make much headway.

Sorry, I didnt know there was a finite amount of time a war should be fought under... I must have missed that 'deadline'.

[Gan]

The Executive branch, if you’ve been following this from the start, has ignored commissions, intelligence, its own generals, bipartisan officials, and now its about to veto funding for the troops while ignoring the majority of people who now disapprove of this war. Thats not to mention this administration has ignored all the warnings about getting into Iraq in the first place and pre-9/11 intelligence.
Its vetoing the funding bill because of the time limitations which are not part of Congressional authority - its trying to micromanage a war - which it can not do, period. Congress is the only actually overstepping its bounds of power and authority, not the Executive branch as you see it. Therefore, GWB has every right and proper reason to veto it. If the bill were truly beneficial to all involved, then a) the president wouldnt feel the need to veto and b) congress would have the 2/3 majority to override and c) they would not have had to try to 'buy' supporting congressman to vote for it. Since it doesnt, that should be evidence enough that the bill in its current form is not appropriate. Furthermore, because its a bill passed by a Democrat majority does not make it necessary and proper.


The second part is I see people’s votes as people’s voices on what issues in this country we live in affect us, need to be addressed and how they should be addressed. You can easily support the argument that the results of the presidential election in 2004 was the voice of America backing our executive branch in what they were doing and how they had performed up to that point.
Thats all well and good but there are rules, ways, and methods which must be followed. Your support of Congressional management of the war shortcuts those proper ways, methods, and rules which are fundamental to the order in which our government works. Thats not good, period.



Disagree. The Executive branch is not the end all be all of American government and it surprises me that anyone would think it was. It further surprises me that anyone would support that notion as it leads to dictatorship which is why, in a sense, America was founded.
Neither is the Legislative branch, thats why the power and authority is split up into 3 seperate branches. Just because the Executive branch is properly using its authority to manage the war doesnt mean its acting as a dictatorship - thats your bias against Bush & Co. showing.


Impeachment is on the table as soon as people stop being afraid of being truly patriotic.
Thats just a stupid statement. Impeachment will only happen when it can be proved that the President broke the law. Which he hasnt.


As far as term limits on Congress, yes, I agree. It was set this way by our founders but I am not opposed to tweaking a system to make it better. But in no way do I support supreme executive power.
As much as I'm in favor of term limits; nowhere in my previous post was that point brought up. You must be mistaking my point for cutting the presidental terms to 2 years in order to better accomodate the tremulous shifting of public opinion.


So the crux of our disagreement is that you think the American people should only have 4 years to have a voice, that the Executive branch is the most powerful branch and should never be hindered during its term for good or for bad and that nothing can happen to make changes in policy between now and 2008.
Sadly, you're wrong on both accounts. Please go back and reread what I'm saying. With your misunderstanding of the mention of the reduction of presidential terms I figured you had slipped off track, this just confirms it.


Thanks for being civil. Hope everyone caught Tenet on 60 Minutes tonight. If not, it should be on their website in a few days or on Google or YouTube.
You're welcome for the civil part, we are coming down to the need to focus on the real problem, not the symptoms that everyone is getting hung up on. And to do that, the need for internet bbs slappage is not on my list of things to include in this discussion.

[TheEschaton]

Sometimes I wonder why the fuck we bother arguing on this forum. We've all already decided, it's not like some of us are part of that mythical "undecided voter" who has no idea and needs to be educated.

And then I think of GW and it makes me see red and I start spouting it all over again...

Gravel/Chomsky '08!

-TheE-

[Gan]

Sometimes I wonder why the fuck we bother arguing on this forum. We've all already decided, it's not like some of us are part of that mythical "undecided voter" who has no idea and needs to be educated.

And then I think of GW and it makes me see red and I start spouting it all over again...

Gravel/Chomsky '08!

-TheE-


The ones who need to be educated arent those who discuss and debate current events and politics on open forums nor do they bother researching articles and alternative viewepoints to further enrich their knowledge.

Unfortunately those mythical undecided ones learn what they do from watching TV or in rare cases reading the newspaper. Which is kinda scary.

[Tsa`ah]

Here's what happened after we "surrendered" in Vietnam ... our involvement in a French matter and what was pretty much already a civil war (second Indochina war).

We withdrew, the south surrendered. The communist north moved in and pretty much left the middle and lower end of the government in tact.

The northern soldiers began to realize they were fed a line of horse shit. Southern Vietnam wasn't a vast land of capitalist forcing the southern inhabitants into exploitative labor ... and pretty much in unison said WTF lying bitches?!!

Despite that, typical "Communist" horrors ensue. The SRVN later makes the huge mistake of aligning with the USSR and in doing so pisses China off. The SRVN becomes as iron clad as their Soviet allies, free industry, education ... et all gets pwnt.

Around the mid-80s they realize things aren't going so well. People don't want to hang around, the Chinese really fucking hate them ... and TP lines aren't all they're cracked up to be.

So they start allowing some free enterprise, allow people to leave if they wish (without the nasty worry of bullets) and they start to budge on things like civil liberties and education.

A good thing to because the USSR started to see the swirling of a flushing toilet in 87 which gave the last evacuatory chugs in 2001. Had they not let the notion of free enterprise settle back in during the mid 80s, they would have been fucked.

With their closest ally firmly down the shitter they threw out their diplomatic feelers and that ultimately ended the US embargo that had been in place for 30 and some odd years.

So I'm curious, what did our involvement in Vietnam accomplish other than jumping into the middle of a conflict that had nothing to do with us?

Imagine if we never got involved. Fewer dead on either side, the French gaining the understanding that they have to clean up their own messes ... hey and the Chinese wouldn't be as hostile toward us as they are today.

Imagine if we never pulled out ... how long do you think we would have been in that conflict before the USSR, China ... or both said "guess what bitches".

[Seran]

Nice post.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Here's what happened after we "surrendered" in Vietnam ...

Um...no. Does no one pay attention to history?


[after a female student answered correctly why America pulled out of Vietnam]

Professor Terguson: Is she right? 'Cause I know that's the *popular* version of what went on there. And a lot of people like to believe that. I wish I could, but I was *there*. I wasn't here in a class room, hoping I was right, thinking about it.
[shouting]
Professor Terguson: I was up to my knees in rice paddies, with guns that didn't work! Going in there, looking for Charlie, slugging it out with him; While
[shouts]
Professor Terguson: pussies like you were back here partying, putting headbands on, doing drugs, and
[shouts]
Professor Terguson: listening to the goddamn Beatle albums! Oh! Oh! Oh!
Thornton Melon: Hey Professor, take it easy. These kids were in grade school at the time, and as for me... I'm not a fighter, I'm a lover.
Professor Terguson: You remember that thing we had about 30 years ago called the Korean conflict? And how we failed to achieve victory? How come we didn't cross the 38th parallel and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China?
Professor Terguson: [rips a desk apart] Then take the fucking wall apart
[shouts]
Professor Terguson: brick by brick and nuke them back into the fucking stone age forever? Tell me why! How come? Say it! Say it!
Thornton Melon: [incensed] All right. I'll say it. 'Cause Truman was too much of a *pussy wimp* to let MacArthur go in there
[shouts]
Thornton Melon: and blow out those Commie bastards!
Professor Terguson: Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think. I'm gonna be watching you.
Thornton Melon: [to his classmates] Nice guy. Really seems to care. About what I have no idea.

[Warriorbird]

Unfortunately those mythical undecided ones learn what they do from watching TV or in rare cases reading the newspaper. Which is kinda scary.
-Ganalon

In this we totally agree.