Out of Iraq

[BallHawk]

Bush's speech today was laughable. It was one of those few moments when you realize what a whole mess the situation is. How the history books teach this one will be interesting.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The administration is predicting a doomsday scenario if we start withdrawing from Iraq "too early". Of course, these are the same people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, Iraqi oil would finance the war, etc. I am not convinced of their wisdom.

the administration is no longer relevant.

[Freak Out]

The administration is predicting a doomsday scenario if we start withdrawing from Iraq "too early". Of course, these are the same people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, Iraqi oil would finance the war, etc. I am not convinced of their wisdom.

the administration is no longer relevant.

Unfortunately they still have time to fuck things up even worse.

[Joemailman]

The administration is predicting a doomsday scenario if we start withdrawing from Iraq "too early". Of course, these are the same people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, Iraqi oil would finance the war, etc. I am not convinced of their wisdom.

the administration is no longer relevant.

I disagree. They may be incredibly ineffective, but they are still relevant. I think there's a real chance that this war will be expanded to include airstrikes against Iran. Bush will do things after the election, but before his terms ends to remind everyone of his relevancy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I disagree. They may be incredibly ineffective, but they are still relevant.

except they have not been ineffective since petraeus & crocker took over. and I'm not just talking about the relative decrease in violence, which is hopeful. they have finessed kurdish problems w/ turkey & kirkuk. they have pressed shia gov to integrate sunni local militia, and pressed-ahead w/ that project despite shia stupidity. i doubt prov. elections would be coming without u.s. nudge. the success of the u.s. military in integrating closer w/ population is astonishing. the polls show rising morale in iraqi population. (well, among the uneducated, hillary clinton type voters who were unable to flee the country. )

(btw, i am not being edgy w/ all lower case, i sprained left shoulder, can't reach shift key. i'm playing hurt.)

you make valid point that bush could yet go wild. maybe, but i really doubt it. gates as defense minister and rice as sec. of state is a new era. they'd stand up to W. yes, i suppose W could always drop the big one in december.

my main point in mentioning the irrelevance of bush & company is that it is time to look to future and stop blaming the old bogey man. it won't help president obama that he was first to be against the war. we need to keep a clear head looking at choices today.

at the charlie rose website, the comments about the burns-filkins interview were mostly from anti-war people claiming that burns is a pro-war shill. total nonsense, one can view old interviews w/ him thru every stage of the war and see he was a realist & skeptic.

some anti-war folks are so set in their ways & rightous fury that they are unwilling to consider new developments. good news is no news. "The war was a bad idea so we have to get out. " I agree there is a case to be made for leaving, but that isn't it.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, sorry to hear about your injury.

However, it appears that the injury reduced your ability to go as far to the left as usual--and that's a very good thing.

Nice fair and balanced post.

It is idiotic of these lefties to parrot the media and condemn the administration which has prevented mass murder of huge numbers of Americans by repeats of 9/11 and which brought the economy back from the abyss of 9/11 to the wonderful boom we have seen--and in both cases, did so using methods strenuously opposed by liberal candidates and other politicians. THAT is the reason the media has promoted so much irrational hate for Bush--he succeeded, and he did it completely counter to their way of doing things.

[Joemailman]

The case to be made for leaving (gradually) is that we will have to over time. We do nor have the troop levels needed to maintain 140,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely until "the job is done" if we are going to deal with other problem areas. Colin Powell said as much this week. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...8xzTAD8VV8UFO0

Bush and McCain know the next President will be forced to withdraw troops from Iraq, unless we are going to have a draft. They just won't say it. Leveling with the American people about what resources we have, what obstacles we face, and what we can do about it would be a good policy. Bush and McCain are not doing that.

[falco]

too bad Colin Powell wasn't our president the last 8 years and not Bush.

[falco]

I was listening to the Diane Rehm show yesterday and they said all the decision makers in the military are against taking any action against Iran - they know our military needs time to regroup, rebuild, etc, before we could ever conceive doing such a thing.

[hoosier]

You like to talk about FACTS, Hoosier. The conundrum faced by those poor sick liberals that you describe is precisely because the FACTS are stacked against them.

The FACT is that everything those guys stand for--Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, etc., in fact, IS ANTI-AMERICAN--bad for American in its result, if not in its intention. And I wouldn't even automatically assume those people are mere good intentioned/misguided idiots.

And when the American people get wind of the comparative positions of the candidates, do you REALLY THINK they are going to choose dumping on America, leaving our security in the hands of the damned UN or old Europe or whoever, TRUSTING and negotiating as equals with manic hateful enemies, raising taxes, ramming through more intrusive government regulations, appointing liberal judges of the type who have already done so much harm, making abortion easier, treating homosexuality as merely an equally virtuous alternative, I could go on, but you get the idea. Democrats/liberals are on the WRONG SIDE of virtually every issue--if you disagree, please state which of the above are good for America. THAT is why as soon as we get past the propaganda machine of the leftist mainstream media, and true positions become known, the Democrats nosedive.

Oh yeah, you mentioned the SwiftBoat thing, that contributed to Kerry's downfall because it was true. His claims in Vietnam really were fraudulent--the reason he could NEVER straight out deny what the SwiftBoaters said about him.

What would be the point of replying to any of this? You have clearly decided that you and you alone are the arbiter of good and bad, American and anti-American. Anything and anyone that differs from your criteria is disqualified a priori. Apparently there's no room in your view of "America" for debate or dissent. I wonder how large a block of the American public would support you in that....

[falco]

You like to talk about FACTS, Hoosier. The conundrum faced by those poor sick liberals that you describe is precisely because the FACTS are stacked against them.

The FACT is that everything those guys stand for--Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, etc., in fact, IS ANTI-AMERICAN--bad for American in its result, if not in its intention. And I wouldn't even automatically assume those people are mere good intentioned/misguided idiots.

And when the American people get wind of the comparative positions of the candidates, do you REALLY THINK they are going to choose dumping on America, leaving our security in the hands of the damned UN or old Europe or whoever, TRUSTING and negotiating as equals with manic hateful enemies, raising taxes, ramming through more intrusive government regulations, appointing liberal judges of the type who have already done so much harm, making abortion easier, treating homosexuality as merely an equally virtuous alternative, I could go on, but you get the idea. Democrats/liberals are on the WRONG SIDE of virtually every issue--if you disagree, please state which of the above are good for America. THAT is why as soon as we get past the propaganda machine of the leftist mainstream media, and true positions become known, the Democrats nosedive.

Oh yeah, you mentioned the SwiftBoat thing, that contributed to Kerry's downfall because it was true. His claims in Vietnam really were fraudulent--the reason he could NEVER straight out deny what the SwiftBoaters said about him.

What would be the point of replying to any of this? You have clearly decided that you and you alone are the arbiter of good and bad, American and anti-American. Anything and anyone that differs from your criteria is disqualified a priori. Apparently there's no room in your view of "America" for debate or dissent. I wonder how large a block of the American public would support you in that....

TPB is judge, jury, and executioner:



ps - I have this original poster, autographed by the man himself... only mine is white, not black

[oregonpackfan]

too bad Colin Powell wasn't our president the last 8 years and not Bush.

I strongly disagree about Colin Powell. He has proved himself to be as much a distorter and a denier of the truth than George W. Bush.

When he was Secretary of State, Powell acted as Bush's spokesman and appeared before the United Nations. He reported on alleged irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussain had massive weapons of mass destruction which were a threat to the security of the United States.

Powell knew full well there was no credible evidence of these weapons yet he made this report to the UN. He was aware that UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and his team of 800 inspectors had found no weapons. He was also aware that 600 American inspectors were in the process of searching the country and were not finding any weapons of mass destruction.

We have to remember another damaging aspect of Powell. When he was a Major in the Vietnam War, he was one of the officers who tried to cover up the My Lai massacre where American soldiers rounded up 500 Vietnamese women, children, and elderly men, lined them in a ditch, and shot them all. Only Lt. William Calley was held responsible for that massacre--he served several years of house arrest.

Colin Powell did not have the integrity to tell the American people the truth about Hussain's alleged weapons and the falsehood about invading Iraq. He was just a company "Yes-Man" for Bush.

[Gunakor]

Gunakor, you were the one who seemingly relegated to nothingness the fact that Bush prevented any repeats of 9/11, as well as bringing the country back so wonderfully in an economic sense. And he did so with INTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY--the war, SECURITY--the Patriot Act, harsh interrogation of terrorists, etc., and TAX CUTTING--All things that Gore/Kerry/Obama/Hillary, basically any Democrat you can name BLATANTLY OPPOSED. Those are the FACTS. How do you get around those FACTS when you thoughtlessly echo the rotten leftist mainstream media and disparage the Bush presidency?

I ask again, what good do you think it would have done to go on some wild goose chase for Bin Laden--even if we caught him? Is REVENGE somehow more important to you than PREVENTION of the repeated mass murder of Americans?

Are you suggesting that the only way to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil was to go to war with a country that, at the time, posed little to no terrorist threat to America? Iraq was not the problem. That's the point. They could have accomplished the same sense of security without starting a second war. I don't see why they had to go to Iraq to prevent another 9/11.

I am not opposed to the reason this war started. In fact, I fully supported going to war in the first place. But the war I supported was the one against those who were responsible for 9/11. Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi dictatorship were not the ones responsible. They were responsible for a great number of injustices, but 9/11 was not one of them. I had thought that this war was about 9/11. Please tell me what Iraq had to do with 9/11. I don't see a connection.

I suppose in order to see where I'm coming from you have to separate the war in Afghanistan from the war in Iraq. I cannot make this any more clear - they are two seperate wars. Or at least they were when America invaded Iraq.

You ask me if revenge is more imortant than the prevention of another mass murder on American soil. The answer is obviously no, but catching bin Laden wouldn't be revenge - it would be justice. Would you say that the mastermind behind 9/11 isn't worth killing or capturing? That we should just let him go? Not worry about it anymore? Was capturing Saddam Huseein more important than capturing Osama bin Laden?

As far as your comment on the interrogation methods of suspected terrorists... I've seen the pictures of Arabs in hoods, wired to car batteries. I've read the reports of waterboarding and other abuse. I know about the courts-martial of MP's for inhumane treatment of prisoners. The violations of the Geneva Convention. Holding people for years without charge or proof of guilt, and with no possibility of legal representation. People who have been PROVEN guilty of murder here in America get far better treatment. The prisoners at Guantanamo will likely never be tried, will never have a chance to prove thier innocence (something nobody should ever have to do in the first place), and probably will never see freedom again whether they were guilty of anything or not. If you pride yourself on American values and the humane treatement of others, it's blatantly obvious what is wrong with this picture.

I don't know where you are from, but my taxes aren't any lower than they were during the Clinton administration. Taxes will go up now, but only because they have to. We have to somehow pay for the deficit that your boy GW let ballon out of control due to this war. If they don't raise taxes then they have to cut spending. If you support this war then you obviously don't want them cutting spending on the war budget. So the cuts would have to come from somewhere else. Would you support cutting spending on real domestic issues such as education and health care so that our taxes won't go up? Maybe you are just fine with the deficit being so high, and have no interest in paying it off? Being TRILLIONS of dollars in debt is sure great for our economy, don't you think? C'mon now. Don't try to tout Bush's domestic or economic record.

Here's a number for you. Our national deficit is currently over 9.4 trillion dollars. It continues to increase at an average rate of 1.67 billion dollars a day, and has since September 2006. If you are okay with this, I assure you that you are in the minority. This ISN'T good for America. Yet Bush has no plan for dealing with that. Neither does McCain. Dems have bit into that deficit while in office only to let the Reps wipe away all thier progress - and in the case of Bush, make the problem bigger than it ever was in history. Does this not matter to you?

[texaspackerbacker]

[quote="falco"]

You like to talk about FACTS, Hoosier. The conundrum faced by those poor sick liberals that you describe is precisely because the FACTS are stacked against them.

The FACT is that everything those guys stand for--Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, etc., in fact, IS ANTI-AMERICAN--bad for American in its result, if not in its intention. And I wouldn't even automatically assume those people are mere good intentioned/misguided idiots.

And when the American people get wind of the comparative positions of the candidates, do you REALLY THINK they are going to choose dumping on America, leaving our security in the hands of the damned UN or old Europe or whoever, TRUSTING and negotiating as equals with manic hateful enemies, raising taxes, ramming through more intrusive government regulations, appointing liberal judges of the type who have already done so much harm, making abortion easier, treating homosexuality as merely an equally virtuous alternative, I could go on, but you get the idea. Democrats/liberals are on the WRONG SIDE of virtually every issue--if you disagree, please state which of the above are good for America. THAT is why as soon as we get past the propaganda machine of the leftist mainstream media, and true positions become known, the Democrats nosedive.

Oh yeah, you mentioned the SwiftBoat thing, that contributed to Kerry's downfall because it was true. His claims in Vietnam really were fraudulent--the reason he could NEVER straight out deny what the SwiftBoaters said about him.

What would be the point of replying to any of this? You have clearly decided that you and you alone are the arbiter of good and bad, American and anti-American. Anything and anyone that differs from your criteria is disqualified a priori. Apparently there's no room in your view of "America" for debate or dissent. I wonder how large a block of the American public would support you in that....

TPB is judge, jury, and executioner:

I am merely one of the Advocates for good sense and what's good for America. The American people are the judge and jury, and the election is the process of execution. The leftists, in particular, the leftists of the mainstream media are the Advocates for lunacy and what's bad for America, and it's plain to see, they have some of you completely snowed to their wrongheaded points of view.

Hoosier, it's pretty lame when you are seemingly incapable of arguing the issues--only making a few sarcastic comments. I guess you have to be forgiven, though, because there simply ARE NO effective arguments in favor of liberal positions--they are just plain WRONG, BAD FOR AMERICA, AND USUALLY JUDGED THAT WAY IN ELECTIONS. When I get around to it, I may start a thread about that.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[quote="texaspackerbacker"]

You like to talk about FACTS, Hoosier. The conundrum faced by those poor sick liberals that you describe is precisely because the FACTS are stacked against them.

The FACT is that everything those guys stand for--Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, etc., in fact, IS ANTI-AMERICAN--bad for American in its result, if not in its intention. And I wouldn't even automatically assume those people are mere good intentioned/misguided idiots.

And when the American people get wind of the comparative positions of the candidates, do you REALLY THINK they are going to choose dumping on America, leaving our security in the hands of the damned UN or old Europe or whoever, TRUSTING and negotiating as equals with manic hateful enemies, raising taxes, ramming through more intrusive government regulations, appointing liberal judges of the type who have already done so much harm, making abortion easier, treating homosexuality as merely an equally virtuous alternative, I could go on, but you get the idea. Democrats/liberals are on the WRONG SIDE of virtually every issue--if you disagree, please state which of the above are good for America. THAT is why as soon as we get past the propaganda machine of the leftist mainstream media, and true positions become known, the Democrats nosedive.

Oh yeah, you mentioned the SwiftBoat thing, that contributed to Kerry's downfall because it was true. His claims in Vietnam really were fraudulent--the reason he could NEVER straight out deny what the SwiftBoaters said about him.

What would be the point of replying to any of this? You have clearly decided that you and you alone are the arbiter of good and bad, American and anti-American. Anything and anyone that differs from your criteria is disqualified a priori. Apparently there's no room in your view of "America" for debate or dissent. I wonder how large a block of the American public would support you in that....

TPB is judge, jury, and executioner:

I am merely one of the Advocates for good sense and what's good for America. The American people are the judge and jury, and the election is the process of execution. The leftists, in particular, the leftists of the mainstream media are the Advocates for lunacy and what's bad for America, and it's plain to see, they have some of you completely snowed to their wrongheaded points of view.

Hoosier, it's pretty lame when you are seemingly incapable of arguing the issues--only making a few sarcastic comments. I guess you have to be forgiven, though, because there simply ARE NO effective arguments in favor of liberal positions--they are just plain WRONG, BAD FOR AMERICA, AND USUALLY JUDGED THAT WAY IN ELECTIONS. When I get around to it, I may start a thread about that.

Oh, good. I know the rest of the forum awaits that thread like Jesus returning.