Well..it's official I guess..Democrats eat shit [Archive]

You must set the ad_network_ads.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).

Well..it's official I guess..Democrats eat shit [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

View Full Version : Well..it's official I guess..Democrats eat shit

FMJeff

03-14-2007, 02:05 PM

<a href="http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Senate+Democrats%27+budget+le aves+war+funding+intact+-+USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=21528127&fb=Y&url=http %3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2F20 07-03-13-budget_N.htm%3Fcsp%3D34&partnerID=1660">http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Senate+Democrats%27+budget+le aves+war+funding+intact+-+USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=21528127&fb=Y&url=http %3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2F20 07-03-13-budget_N.htm%3Fcsp%3D34&partnerID=1660</a>Elected to be tough on the war, tough on Bush, Democrats prove today they are tough in words only.It makes me want to be a republican, this pathetic budget...what an embarassment. Thank you for doing exactly what Republicans said you would do....fall apart under mounting pressure of anti-troop/anti-american pundits claiming you dont support them...No backbone, no leadership. G-d how can one party be so dissapointing. It's clear the only reason democrats were elected was because they were not republicans. they have no plan, no consensus.

SatCam

03-14-2007, 02:08 PM

that took balls jeff

Kevin

03-14-2007, 02:09 PM

Not a big shocker... They are all politicians... They all have, no heart, no backbone, and eat shit. The Reps  are richer, thats basicaly the difference.

Jujubees2

03-14-2007, 02:13 PM

How about this Bozo? Strong economy?  Where the hell is he living?"We'll need to take a look at the details to see if the math adds up to a tax increase on American families and job creators, a move which would put our strong economy in jeopardy," White House budget director Rob Portman said.

TheMojoPin

03-14-2007, 02:13 PM

What a bunch of spineless schmucks.I'm never voting Democrat again.

FezsAssistant

03-14-2007, 02:15 PM

The Democrats said they'd bring the troops home.  Haven't done it yet.  Then they said they wanted to increase the troops.  Then GWB agreed with them, then they acted like he was crazy for suggesting such a thing (even though they suggested it themselves before he did). They are the party of complaining and the party of no ideas.  

This message was edited by Fez'sAssistant on 3-14-07 @ 6:16 PM

lleeder

03-14-2007, 02:32 PM

How long before Fat_Sunny posts in this thread?

Kevin

03-14-2007, 02:35 PM

Fez'sAssistant        Please edit that budday, the length is stretchin the thread, and its driving me nuts. 

This message was edited by Kevin on 3-14-07 @ 6:37 PM

Golfman

03-14-2007, 02:35 PM

All politicians blow, that's why they're politicians, nobody will hire their lousy asses.

SatCam

03-14-2007, 02:37 PM

Kevin wrote: Fez'sAssistant wrote: The Democrats said they'd bring the troops home. Haven't done it yet. Then they said they wanted to increase the troops. Then GWB agreed with them, then they acted like he was crazy for suggesting such a thing (even though they suggested it themselves before he did). They are the party of complaining and the party of no ideas. This message was edited by Fez'sAssistant on 3-14-07 @ 6:16 PM Please edit that Budday, the length is stretching the page, and its driving me nuts.

it's jeffs link

Kevin

03-14-2007, 02:38 PM

SatCam wrote: Kevin wrote: Fez'sAssistant wrote: The Democrats said they'd bring the troops home. Haven't done it yet. Then they said they wanted to increase the troops. Then GWB agreed with them, then they acted like he was crazy for suggesting such a thing (even though they suggested it themselves before he did). They are the party of complaining and the party of no ideas. This message was edited by Fez'sAssistant on 3-14-07 @ 6:16 PM Please edit that Budday, the length is stretching the page, and its driving me nuts.  it's jeffs link Oh yea, sorry, my mistake.

Snacks

03-14-2007, 03:56 PM

FMJeff wrote: <a href="http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Senate+Democrats%27+budget+le aves+war+funding+intact+-+USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=21528127&fb=Y&url=http %3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2F20 07-03-13-budget_N.htm%3Fcsp%3D34&partnerID=1660">http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Senate+Democrats%27+budget+le aves+war+funding+intact+-+USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=21528127&fb=Y&url=http %3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2F20 07-03-13-budget_N.htm%3Fcsp%3D34&partnerID=1660</a>Elected to be tough on the war, tough on Bush, Democrats prove today they are tough in words only.It makes me want to be a republican, this pathetic budget...what an embarassment. Thank you for doing exactly what Republicans said you would do....fall apart under mounting pressure of anti-troop/anti-american pundits claiming you dont support them...No backbone, no leadership. G-d how can one party be so dissapointing. It's clear the only reason democrats were elected was because they were not republicans. they have no plan, no consensus.   great post Jeff. I was thinking the exact same thing as news was coming out the past day or so. I cant believe they just cant do the right thing and stop worrying about everything else. The Republicans did what they wanted the past 6 years without worrying about anything. Look at what Gonzalez admitted to the past 2 days. They fired federal prosecuters that were not Bush friendly and they also admited to over using the patriot act power without reporting how much they abused that power. The Gonzo has the balls to say he will take the blame and no matter what will stay on the job.The Dems have to grow some balls and stick to their guns. People love to hate on Clinton but he did what he said he was going to do (for the most part)

weekapaugjz

03-14-2007, 04:00 PM

lleeder wrote: How long before Fat_Sunny posts in this thread? he did at 6:32 p.m.

Doctor Z

03-14-2007, 04:00 PM

FMJeff wrote: Democrats prove today they are tough in words only.In other news, the sun rises in the east and water has been found to be wet.

HBox

03-14-2007, 04:26 PM

I was gonna post how this is only the Senate budget plan but then I realized that there no chance that the House plan will cut off funding and even if it did the Senate wouldn't pass it.

FMJeff

03-14-2007, 07:18 PM

and let me just add Nancy Pelosi is truly ineffective. Now im not going to go into a whole diatribe about why women shouldn't be in leadership roles but clearly electing pelosi to the position was the best thing the democrats could've ever done for the republicans.

Jughead

03-14-2007, 07:24 PM

I Dont know anything....well I do know a little...Please help our boys over there WIN!!!!!

Fat_Sunny

03-14-2007, 08:04 PM

weekapaugjz wrote: lleeder wrote: How long before Fat_Sunny posts in this thread?  he did at 6:32 p.m. Keep Guessing, Mojambo!Look Here, The "Mommy Party" Is Led By Super-Rich Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, And Edwards, And Yet They Get Their Votes By Pretending To Be Friends Of America's Less Fortunate And Mentally Challenged.  It Is A Shame That They Duped The Poor People Who Voted Them In Last Fall.  They Ran On One Platform, But Are Actually Doing Something Entirely Different.  Does That Make Them Liars, Or Hypocrites?  Hmmm...Not Much Of A Choice!

Yerdaddy

03-14-2007, 08:17 PM

First of all not all the democrats supported cutting off funds. Second of all they would have been labelled as "abandoning the troops in the field", and it would have worked. Because Americans are childish, hateful, and irresponsible when it comes to understanding politics. And finally, they've got to worry about winning elections in 2008. That is their most important job right now because <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901885.html" target="_blank">if they can't do it</a> they can't protect us from another Republican White House and Congress that is just as insane and self-destructive to the United States as the last six years have been. In some ways winning back Congress, (barely), in '06 was the worst thing that could have happened to the Democrats. It puts them in a position of shared responsibility with the Bush cult in the White House after the Iraq War has been lost but before Operation Blame the Iraqis and Leave has begun. They still don't have any chance of changing how the war is conducted so they can't win anything there but they can be blamed for whatever goes wrong. And they will be blamed as is already happening with the redefinition of the authorization for use of force resolution being redefined as "voted for the war". The Democrats can't actually do anything about Iraq right now. All they can do is keep the Republicans from using control of Congress to act as a rubber stamp for the White House. They should use the time to hold hearings exposing how the Bush White House lied us into this war and then lost it through criminal neglegence. However, they have to use hearings in moderation or they'll make the Republicans look like victims and they'll lose the elections again in '08. The only think Dems can actually do in Congress is to push their domestic agenda through in order to show the differences between them and the Republicans. This bill does that with the spending on child health care - an issue that Americans overwhelmingly support. And if you want a difference between the Democrats and Republicans - Iraq, Afghanistan and the wurr on turr. There's your fucking difference. The Democrats don't love to lose wars.

BLZBUBBA

03-14-2007, 08:17 PM

I can't believe you guys are still on the whole...Reps vs. Dems thing.  How am I going to vote for this bill?  Who gave me the money to get re-elected?  WHORES!  The lot of them.  I only trust 2 dems.  Franken and Kucinich.  And as for the Republicans?  NONE!Write your rep.  Tell him or her that you want term limits and watch as it goes nowhere.  Support the third party candidates.

Kevin

03-14-2007, 08:18 PM

I'm guessing your a Republican Yerdaddy... Right???

epo

03-14-2007, 08:20 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: lleeder wrote: How long before Fat_Sunny posts in this thread?  he did at 6:32 p.m. Keep Guessing, Mojambo!Look Here, The "Mommy Party" Is Led By Super-Rich Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, And Edwards, And Yet They Get Their Votes By Pretending To Be Friends Of America's Less Fortunate And Mentally Challenged.  It Is A Shame That They Duped The Poor People Who Voted Them In Last Fall.  They Ran On One Platform, But Are Actually Doing Something Entirely Different.  Does That Make Them Liars, Or Hypocrites?  Hmmm...Not Much Of A Choice!Well, Fat Sunny in his board character fucked up.  In this "super hilarious analogy" the Democrats are the mom & we are to infer the Republican Party is therefore the Dad, correct?Well, in this case George Fucking W. Bush is the crazy mother with the credit card while Dad (Democrats) is away for the weekend.  She goes to the mall and charges a bunch of shit she doesn't need (yet desires) and the family can't afford.  Dad just came home and is now figuring out how to make the interest payments while getting a second job.  Nice war Republicans.  The Democatic leadership is currently figuring out how to end this fucking unnecessary Republican war.  Unfortunately ending the war isn't going to be easy when mom still has the god damned credit card in her purse.

Se7en

03-14-2007, 08:22 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: What a bunch of spineless schmucks.I'm never voting Democrat again.<img src="http://www.planearium2.de/bilder/gaststars-condit2.jpg" border="0" width="73" height="100" /> "LIAR!  YOU'RE A GODDAMN LIAR!"

Yerdaddy

03-14-2007, 08:23 PM

Kevin wrote: I'm guessing your a Republican Yerdaddy... Right??? If this were 1860... yes.

Kevin

03-14-2007, 08:27 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: Kevin wrote: I'm guessing your a Republican Yerdaddy... Right??? If this were 1860... yes.Bandwagener.

This message was edited by Kevin on 3-15-07 @ 12:29 AM

burrben

03-14-2007, 08:29 PM

i'm a democrat, but if we leave now, we'll be over there again in ten years anyway. and why aren't you looking at the highlights of the plans...This year's $248 billion budget deficit would rise to $249 billion next year. By 2012, it would be replaced by a $132 billion surplus.The Children's Health Insurance Program would get up to $50 billion more over five years, about $45 billion more than Bush proposed and enough to insure all eligible children. Education programs would get about $6 billion more than Bush proposed next year, and veterans programs would rise by about $3.5 billionTax rates would not be increased, but the budget would seek to clamp down on tax cheats and offshore tax shelters to raise new revenue. The alternative minimum tax, which targets the rich, would not raise taxes on the middle class for two years — one year more than Bush proposes.

Fat_Sunny

03-14-2007, 08:36 PM

epo wrote: Well, Fat Sunny in his board character fucked up.  In this "super hilarious analogy" the Democrats are the mom & we are to infer the Republican Party is therefore the Dad, correct?Well, in this case George Fucking W. Bush is the crazy mother with the credit card while Dad (Democrats) is away for the weekend.  She goes to the mall and charges a bunch of shit she doesn't need (yet desires) and the family can't afford.  Dad just came home and is now figuring out how to make the interest payments while getting a second job.  Nice war Republicans.  The Democatic leadership is currently figuring out how to end this fucking unnecessary Republican war.  Unfortunately ending the war isn't going to be easy when mom still has the god damned credit card in her purse.Epo, Sorry, But The Name On The Credit Card Is: U.S. Congress, Not G.W. Bush.Under The Constitution, ONLY The Congress Can Authorize Funds.  If You Read The Link To The Article Above, The Democrat-Controlled Congress Has Chosen NOT To Cut The Funds To The Military.The Democrat-Congress Has Said To The President: You Can Keep The Card Honey, And Go Ahead And Spend-Away!

HBox

03-14-2007, 08:39 PM

burrben wrote: i'm a democrat, but if we leave now, we'll be over there again in ten years anyway. and why aren't you looking at the highlights of the plans...This year's $248 billion budget deficit would rise to $249 billion next year. By 2012, it would be replaced by a $132 billion surplus.The Children's Health Insurance Program would get up to $50 billion more over five years, about $45 billion more than Bush proposed and enough to insure all eligible children. Education programs would get about $6 billion more than Bush proposed next year, and veterans programs would rise by about $3.5 billionTax rates would not be increased, but the budget would seek to clamp down on tax cheats and offshore tax shelters to raise new revenue. The alternative minimum tax, which targets the rich, would not raise taxes on the middle class for two years — one year more than Bush proposes.There's a reason the surplus would come in 2012. It's because Bush's tax cuts expire in 2010. You don't think that's going to be a bit of an issue?Besides by 2010 the landscape will be different with a new President and a different makeup in Congress. Extrapolating that far out is useless.

Yerdaddy

03-14-2007, 08:40 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: epo wrote: Well, Fat Sunny in his board character fucked up.  In this "super hilarious analogy" the Democrats are the mom & we are to infer the Republican Party is therefore the Dad, correct?Well, in this case George Fucking W. Bush is the crazy mother with the credit card while Dad (Democrats) is away for the weekend.  She goes to the mall and charges a bunch of shit she doesn't need (yet desires) and the family can't afford.  Dad just came home and is now figuring out how to make the interest payments while getting a second job.  Nice war Republicans.  The Democatic leadership is currently figuring out how to end this fucking unnecessary Republican war.  Unfortunately ending the war isn't going to be easy when mom still has the god damned credit card in her purse.Epo, Sorry, But The Name On The Credit Card Is: U.S. Congress, Not G.W. Bush.Under The Constitution, ONLY The Congress Can Authorize Funds.  If You Read The Link To The Article Above, The Democrat-Controlled Congress Has Chosen NOT To Cut The Funds To The Military.The Democrat-Congress Has Said To The President: You Can Keep The Card Honey, And Go Ahead And Spend-Away!And if they cut the funds right-wing freaks like you would accuse them of abandoning the troops in the field so fuck off!

epo

03-14-2007, 08:42 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: epo wrote: Well, Fat Sunny in his board character fucked up.  In this "super hilarious analogy" the Democrats are the mom & we are to infer the Republican Party is therefore the Dad, correct?Well, in this case George Fucking W. Bush is the crazy mother with the credit card while Dad (Democrats) is away for the weekend.  She goes to the mall and charges a bunch of shit she doesn't need (yet desires) and the family can't afford.  Dad just came home and is now figuring out how to make the interest payments while getting a second job.  Nice war Republicans.  The Democatic leadership is currently figuring out how to end this fucking unnecessary Republican war.  Unfortunately ending the war isn't going to be easy when mom still has the god damned credit card in her purse.Epo, Sorry, But The Name On The Credit Card Is: U.S. Congress, Not G.W. Bush.Under The Constitution, ONLY The Congress Can Authorize Funds.  If You Read The Link To The Article Above, The Democrat-Controlled Congress Has Chosen NOT To Cut The Funds To The Military.The Democrat-Congress Has Said To The President: You Can Keep The Card Honey, And Go Ahead And Spend-Away!Who started the war?  George W. Bush. Who told DeLay he wanted the money?  George W. BushWho did what they were told and ignored their Constitutional responsibilities of oversight?  The Republican-Congress.

BLZBUBBA

03-14-2007, 08:42 PM

We've had one disaster with Iraq.  Going in.  And the Dems laid down like a bunch of lapdogs because the question of whether to invade or not came up just prior to an election.  I say pull out.  Let the Iraqis go back to what they do best.  Letting the guy with the biggest sword run the show.  That's what will happen as soon as we pull out anyway.  Same with Afghanistan.

epo

03-14-2007, 08:46 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: The Democrat-Congress Has Said To The President: You Can Keep The Card Honey, And Go Ahead And Spend-Away!It's actually "Democratic" not Democrat.  You should really stop watching the Fox News talking points and grow an independent thought.

Yerdaddy

03-14-2007, 08:50 PM

BLZBUBBA wrote: We've had one disaster with Iraq.  Going in.  And the Dems laid down like a bunch of lapdogs because the question of whether to invade or not came up just prior to an election.  I say pull out.  Let the Iraqis go back to what they do best.  Letting the guy with the biggest sword run the show.  That's what will happen as soon as we pull out anyway.  Same with Afghanistan.  It was NOT a vote on whether to invade or not! Iraqis and Afghanis DO NOT live in a natural state of violence. These are situations we imposed on them and we have a responibility to leave them with the best hope for peace and security we can. Our job as citizens is to hold our government to the responsibilities that they assumed. Don't be a left-wing zealot or you're no better than the right-wing zealots who created the situation.

Fat_Sunny

03-14-2007, 08:51 PM

epo wrote: It's actually "Democratic" not Democrat.  You should really stop watching the Fox News talking points and grow an independent thought.When You Are Ready To Attack The Ideas And Not The Speaker, Let Fat Know.

weekapaugjz

03-14-2007, 08:54 PM

epo wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote: epo wrote: Well, Fat Sunny in his board character fucked up. In this "super hilarious analogy" the Democrats are the mom & we are to infer the Republican Party is therefore the Dad, correct?Well, in this case George Fucking W. Bush is the crazy mother with the credit card while Dad (Democrats) is away for the weekend. She goes to the mall and charges a bunch of shit she doesn't need (yet desires) and the family can't afford. Dad just came home and is now figuring out how to make the interest payments while getting a second job. Nice war Republicans. The Democatic leadership is currently figuring out how to end this fucking unnecessary Republican war. Unfortunately ending the war isn't going to be easy when mom still has the god damned credit card in her purse.Epo, Sorry, But The Name On The Credit Card Is: U.S. Congress, Not G.W. Bush.Under The Constitution, ONLY The Congress Can Authorize Funds. If You Read The Link To The Article Above, The Democrat-Controlled Congress Has Chosen NOT To Cut The Funds To The Military.The Democrat-Congress Has Said To The President: You Can Keep The Card Honey, And Go Ahead And Spend-Away!Who started the war? George W. Bush. Who told DeLay he wanted the money? George W. BushWho did what they were told and ignored their Constitutional responsibilities of oversight? The Republican-Congress.  for someone so picky with semantics, its actually congress that starts a war, not the president.

Fat_Sunny

03-14-2007, 08:55 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: And if they cut the funds right-wing freaks like you would accuse them of abandoning the troops in the field so fuck off!So What If They Did?  The Definition Of Courage Is Doing What You Think Is Right, Even If You Get Attacked For Doing It.

epo

03-14-2007, 08:55 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: epo wrote: It's actually "Democratic" not Democrat.  You should really stop watching the Fox News talking points and grow an independent thought.When You Are Ready To Attack The Ideas And Not The Speaker, Let Fat Know.When you provide an argument not off a talking points sheet, let EPO know.  Your rhetoric gives you away.

epo

03-14-2007, 08:57 PM

weekapaugjz wrote: epo wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote: epo wrote: Well, Fat Sunny in his board character fucked up. In this "super hilarious analogy" the Democrats are the mom & we are to infer the Republican Party is therefore the Dad, correct?Well, in this case George Fucking W. Bush is the crazy mother with the credit card while Dad (Democrats) is away for the weekend. She goes to the mall and charges a bunch of shit she doesn't need (yet desires) and the family can't afford. Dad just came home and is now figuring out how to make the interest payments while getting a second job. Nice war Republicans. The Democatic leadership is currently figuring out how to end this fucking unnecessary Republican war. Unfortunately ending the war isn't going to be easy when mom still has the god damned credit card in her purse.Epo, Sorry, But The Name On The Credit Card Is: U.S. Congress, Not G.W. Bush.Under The Constitution, ONLY The Congress Can Authorize Funds. If You Read The Link To The Article Above, The Democrat-Controlled Congress Has Chosen NOT To Cut The Funds To The Military.The Democrat-Congress Has Said To The President: You Can Keep The Card Honey, And Go Ahead And Spend-Away!Who started the war? George W. Bush. Who told DeLay he wanted the money? George W. BushWho did what they were told and ignored their Constitutional responsibilities of oversight? The Republican-Congress.  for someone so picky with semantics, its actually congress that starts a war, not the president.The 2002 Congressional Authorization of Force was not a Declaration of War, which is what Congress has the power over.

weekapaugjz

03-14-2007, 09:00 PM

epo wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: epo wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote: epo wrote: Well, Fat Sunny in his board character fucked up. In this "super hilarious analogy" the Democrats are the mom & we are to infer the Republican Party is therefore the Dad, correct?Well, in this case George Fucking W. Bush is the crazy mother with the credit card while Dad (Democrats) is away for the weekend. She goes to the mall and charges a bunch of shit she doesn't need (yet desires) and the family can't afford. Dad just came home and is now figuring out how to make the interest payments while getting a second job. Nice war Republicans. The Democatic leadership is currently figuring out how to end this fucking unnecessary Republican war. Unfortunately ending the war isn't going to be easy when mom still has the god damned credit card in her purse.Epo, Sorry, But The Name On The Credit Card Is: U.S. Congress, Not G.W. Bush.Under The Constitution, ONLY The Congress Can Authorize Funds. If You Read The Link To The Article Above, The Democrat-Controlled Congress Has Chosen NOT To Cut The Funds To The Military.The Democrat-Congress Has Said To The President: You Can Keep The Card Honey, And Go Ahead And Spend-Away!Who started the war? George W. Bush. Who told DeLay he wanted the money? George W. BushWho did what they were told and ignored their Constitutional responsibilities of oversight? The Republican-Congress. for someone so picky with semantics, its actually congress that starts a war, not the president.The 2002 Congressional Authorization of Force was not a Declaration of War, which is what Congress has the power over.  again with semantics, then it's not a "war" that bush started. if you are going to slam what other people post, make sure your wording is impeccable

TheMojoPin

03-14-2007, 09:01 PM

Se7en wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: What a bunch of spineless schmucks.I'm never voting Democrat again.<img src="http://www.planearium2.de/bilder/gaststars-condit2.jpg" border="0" width="73" height="100" /> "LIAR!  YOU'RE A GODDAMN LIAR!"Well, considering I only have three times in all the various level elections I've voted in in the last 9 years, it's not gonna be too difficult.  Granted, I was a bit dramatic...I don't rule out any party completely, but this just really solidified how they've so totally alienated me.  I wasn't expecting them to suddenly shut down all of the money and start yanking troops out right away, but I was definitely hoping they would at least begin taking steps away from the disaster Bush has made.  Instead they did absolutely nothing.

Yerdaddy

03-14-2007, 09:05 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: And if they cut the funds right-wing freaks like you would accuse them of abandoning the troops in the field so fuck off!So What If They Did?  The Definition Of Courage Is Doing What You Think Is Right, Even If You Get Attacked For Doing It.So when you would attack them for whatever they do where's your fucking courage? Or better yet, where's your concearn for the country or the soldiers who are fighting it's wars? What's courageus about Republicans goose-stepping behind a party while it does everything it can to lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and by doing so guaranteeing a "war on terrorism" that will last at least a generation longer than it would have? I call that loyalty to a political party or an ideology above country.

HBox

03-14-2007, 09:05 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: Se7en wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: What a bunch of spineless schmucks.I'm never voting Democrat again.<img src="http://www.planearium2.de/bilder/gaststars-condit2.jpg" border="0" width="73" height="100" /> "LIAR! YOU'RE A GODDAMN LIAR!"Well, considering I only have three times in all the various level elections I've voted in in the last 9 years, it's not gonna be too difficult. Granted, I was a bit dramatic...I don't rule out any party completely, but this just really solidified how they've so totally alienated me. I wasn't expecting them to suddenly shut down all of the money and start yanking troops out right away, but I was definitely hoping they would at least begin taking steps away from the disaster Bush has made. Instead they did absolutely nothing.To be fair they haven't actually done anything yet. The House proposal supposedly mandates troop withdrawal by as soon as October 2007 and at least by August 2008. Neither proposal has been passed yet.

HBox

03-14-2007, 09:06 PM

weekapaugjz wrote: epo wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: epo wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote: epo wrote: Well, Fat Sunny in his board character fucked up. In this "super hilarious analogy" the Democrats are the mom & we are to infer the Republican Party is therefore the Dad, correct?Well, in this case George Fucking W. Bush is the crazy mother with the credit card while Dad (Democrats) is away for the weekend. She goes to the mall and charges a bunch of shit she doesn't need (yet desires) and the family can't afford. Dad just came home and is now figuring out how to make the interest payments while getting a second job. Nice war Republicans. The Democatic leadership is currently figuring out how to end this fucking unnecessary Republican war. Unfortunately ending the war isn't going to be easy when mom still has the god damned credit card in her purse.Epo, Sorry, But The Name On The Credit Card Is: U.S. Congress, Not G.W. Bush.Under The Constitution, ONLY The Congress Can Authorize Funds. If You Read The Link To The Article Above, The Democrat-Controlled Congress Has Chosen NOT To Cut The Funds To The Military.The Democrat-Congress Has Said To The President: You Can Keep The Card Honey, And Go Ahead And Spend-Away!Who started the war? George W. Bush. Who told DeLay he wanted the money? George W. BushWho did what they were told and ignored their Constitutional responsibilities of oversight? The Republican-Congress. for someone so picky with semantics, its actually congress that starts a war, not the president.The 2002 Congressional Authorization of Force was not a Declaration of War, which is what Congress has the power over. again with semantics, then it's not a "war" that bush started. if you are going to slam what other people post, make sure your wording is impeccable They granted Bush the authority to declare war and he proceeded to do so.

TheMojoPin

03-14-2007, 09:07 PM

HBox wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Se7en wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: What a bunch of spineless schmucks.I'm never voting Democrat again.<img src="http://www.planearium2.de/bilder/gaststars-condit2.jpg" border="0" width="73" height="100" />"LIAR! YOU'RE A GODDAMN LIAR!"Well, considering I only have three times in all the various level elections I've voted in in the last 9 years, it's not gonna be too difficult. Granted, I was a bit dramatic...I don't rule out any party completely, but this just really solidified how they've so totally alienated me. I wasn't expecting them to suddenly shut down all of the money and start yanking troops out right away, but I was definitely hoping they would at least begin taking steps away from the disaster Bush has made. Instead they did absolutely nothing.To be fair they haven't actually done anything yet. The House proposal supposedly mandates troop withdrawal by as soon as October 2007 and at least by August 2008. Neither proposal has been passed yet. It probably sounds shallow, but I was caring more about the money than the men here.  I don't think anyone was expecting troops to come home this fast, but I expected more of a fight against the current level of spending.

weekapaugjz

03-14-2007, 09:08 PM

HBox wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: epo wrote: for someone so picky with semantics, its actually congress that starts a war, not the president.The 2002 Congressional Authorization of Force was not a Declaration of War, which is what Congress has the power over. again with semantics, then it's not a "war" that bush started. if you are going to slam what other people post, make sure your wording is impeccable They granted Bush the authority to declare war and he proceeded to do so. so its all bush's fault and not congress?

epo

03-14-2007, 09:11 PM

weekapaugjz wrote:  again with semantics, then it's not a "war" that bush started. if you are going to slam what other people post, make sure your wording is impeccable Here's my problem.  For many years part of Republican rhetorical strategy is to use semantics to degrade their opposition.  In this case the "Democratic Party" is widely called the "Democrat Party" by Republican & Faux News "journalists" in this country.  It drives me absolutely nuts because of the explicit disrespect & attempt at rhetorical dominant power meant by it.  That's my problem.  I could honestly give a shit about Fat Sunny's hilarious board character.

Yerdaddy

03-14-2007, 09:11 PM

weekapaugjz wrote: epo wrote: Fat_Sunny wrote: epo wrote: Well, Fat Sunny in his board character fucked up. In this "super hilarious analogy" the Democrats are the mom & we are to infer the Republican Party is therefore the Dad, correct?Well, in this case George Fucking W. Bush is the crazy mother with the credit card while Dad (Democrats) is away for the weekend. She goes to the mall and charges a bunch of shit she doesn't need (yet desires) and the family can't afford. Dad just came home and is now figuring out how to make the interest payments while getting a second job. Nice war Republicans. The Democatic leadership is currently figuring out how to end this fucking unnecessary Republican war. Unfortunately ending the war isn't going to be easy when mom still has the god damned credit card in her purse.Epo, Sorry, But The Name On The Credit Card Is: U.S. Congress, Not G.W. Bush.Under The Constitution, ONLY The Congress Can Authorize Funds. If You Read The Link To The Article Above, The Democrat-Controlled Congress Has Chosen NOT To Cut The Funds To The Military.The Democrat-Congress Has Said To The President: You Can Keep The Card Honey, And Go Ahead And Spend-Away!Who started the war? George W. Bush. Who told DeLay he wanted the money? George W. BushWho did what they were told and ignored their Constitutional responsibilities of oversight? The Republican-Congress.  for someone so picky with semantics, its actually congress that starts a war, not the president.That hasn't been true since the Korean "Conflict".

HBox

03-14-2007, 09:13 PM

weekapaugjz wrote: HBox wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: again with semantics, then it's not a "war" that bush started. if you are going to slam what other people post, make sure your wording is impeccable They granted Bush the authority to declare war and he proceeded to do so. so its all bush's fault and not congress?sigh... Jesus fucking Christ.It was a fucking stupid thing to do to give Bush that authority. Everybody pretty much knew what he was going to do. But he was the one who ultimately declared war (which was at the center of that cheap little point you tried to score), and ran two of them into the ground. This war is on him and Republicans who let him do whatever he wanted. Some Democrats are an accessory at most.

HBox

03-14-2007, 09:17 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: HBox wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Se7en wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: What a bunch of spineless schmucks.I'm never voting Democrat again.<img src="http://www.planearium2.de/bilder/gaststars-condit2.jpg" border="0" width="73" height="100" />"LIAR! YOU'RE A GODDAMN LIAR!"Well, considering I only have three times in all the various level elections I've voted in in the last 9 years, it's not gonna be too difficult. Granted, I was a bit dramatic...I don't rule out any party completely, but this just really solidified how they've so totally alienated me. I wasn't expecting them to suddenly shut down all of the money and start yanking troops out right away, but I was definitely hoping they would at least begin taking steps away from the disaster Bush has made. Instead they did absolutely nothing.To be fair they haven't actually done anything yet. The House proposal supposedly mandates troop withdrawal by as soon as October 2007 and at least by August 2008. Neither proposal has been passed yet. It probably sounds shallow, but I was caring more about the money than the men here. I don't think anyone was expecting troops to come home this fast, but I expected more of a fight against the current level of spending.Then I disagree. If you are going to leave them there you should fund them fully. Especially since they are already problems affording armor and such.As for corruption and overcharging its going to take time to get to the bottom of all that since the previous leadership did nothing at all. By the time they get to the bottom of all that I hope we are long gone.

epo

03-14-2007, 09:18 PM

weekapaugjz wrote: The 2002 Congressional Authorization of Force was not a Declaration of War, which is what Congress has the power over. again with semantics, then it's not a "war" that bush started.if you are going to slam what other people post, make sure your wording is impeccable They granted Bush the authority to declare war and he proceeded to do so. so its all bush's fault and not congress?CNN Headline:  March 19, 2003, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/">Bush Declares War</a>I didn't see Congress in that Headline.I'm tired of this argument and going to bed.

Yerdaddy

03-14-2007, 09:21 PM

weekapaugjz wrote: HBox wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: epo wrote: for someone so picky with semantics, its actually congress that starts a war, not the president.The 2002 Congressional Authorization of Force was not a Declaration of War, which is what Congress has the power over. again with semantics, then it's not a "war" that bush started.if you are going to slam what other people post, make sure your wording is impeccable They granted Bush the authority to declare war and he proceeded to do so. so its all bush's fault and not congress?It's the fault of the Bush adminstration, the Republican rubber-stamp congress at the time and the ordinary conservatives who ignored the evidence that the adminsitration was lying and attacked anyone who opposed the war or even questioned the administration on any aspect of it. You who goose-stepped for four years while this terrorism-inducing war was being lost are guilty too. The democrats are guilty of not being strong enough to defeat all three branches of government and the public from doing something that Americans love to do - make war.

weekapaugjz

03-14-2007, 09:27 PM

epo wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: The 2002 Congressional Authorization of Force was not a Declaration of War, which is what Congress has the power over. again with semantics, then it's not a "war" that bush started.if you are going to slam what other people post, make sure your wording is impeccable They granted Bush the authority to declare war and he proceeded to do so. so its all bush's fault and not congress?CNN Headline: March 19, 2003, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/">Bush Declares War</a>I didn't see Congress in that Headline.I'm tired of this argument and going to bed.   didn't you just post something above saying to have an independent thought?

BLZBUBBA

03-14-2007, 09:38 PM

There was a vote to "allow" Bush to decide.  Their votes gave him the power to decide.  THE IRAQ RESOLUTION I believe it was called.  It was an election year.  9-11 was still on voter's minds.  And where were the Dems?  For the most part  they were afraid they'd lose votes if they dared question the invasion.  They say now that they were trusting Bush's intel?  TRUST BUSH?  I'd be banging on his door every damn day wanting to know where those WMDs are.  I'd be impeaching his ass.  But no.  Let's make nice.  This whole country was "jobbed" on Iraq.  And where were the Dems?  They were playing ball.   And I was taking a quote from a book written from a former CIA agent who was an expert on the Middle East....We're propping up Karzai with our bayonets.  As soon as we pull out he's doomed.  It was either one of Baer's books or the author...ANONYMOUS from IMPERIAL HUBRIS.  He went on to say that our invasion was gift for Osama because that's what he'd been hoping for. I live in a red...RED state.  No way this state votes democratic anytime soon.  So I vote third party.  Bush took Texas in a landslide in '04.  Had it been close between him and Kerry I'd probably have voted for Kerry...despite a weak effort.  If it were close in Texas,  I'd consider the Democratic candidate in '08 but I'd still be holding my nose.  As is?  Third party all the way.

Yerdaddy

03-14-2007, 09:46 PM

BLZBUBBA wrote: There was a vote to "allow" Bush to decide.  Their votes gave him the power to decide.  THE IRAQ RESOLUTION I believe it was called.  It was an election year.  9-11 was still on voter's minds.  And where were the Dems?  For the most part  they were afraid they'd lose votes if they dared question the invasion.  They say now that they were trusting Bush's intel?  TRUST BUSH?  I'd be banging on his door every damn day wanting to know where those WMDs are.  I'd be impeaching his ass.  But no.  Let's make nice.  This whole country was "jobbed" on Iraq.  And where were the Dems?  They were playing ball.   They were the minority party in both houses, how does that fit into your assessment? If all the Democrats had voted against the authorization, how many of them would have been left in Congress after the elections three weeks later? Keep in mind we are still a public that re-elected Bush two years later - in the midst of losing Iraq and Afghanistan.

BLZBUBBA

03-14-2007, 10:12 PM

So we'll let Bush decide because we're in the minority,  and there are these elections.  There should have been more voices questioning him.  Where was the opposition?  Had those questions been asked perhaps...perhaps then more of the public would have said..."HEY...Wait a minute."  Those Dems voting for that resolution were sellouts (worrying about votes).  Okay.  I'll give some of them the benefit of the doubt.  They were voting the way their constituents wanted them to vote.  I wrote my rep while the Iraq thing was up in the air and told him it was a bad idea.  I even used a stupid Texas analogy for him on the question of Iraq. "One doesn't go reaching around rocks for rattlesnakes without at least considering other options."  He emailed back that I was in the minority.  That's it.  He lost his job through Tom Delay's re-districting.  So he played ball and what did it get him?  Well.  He did get a high-paying lobbyist job.  So I guess that's what playing ball gets you in DC? And if you want to keep beating up on the right wing consider this...Most of what I've read negative about Bush and the Iraq mess came from AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE MAGAZINE...Pat Buchanan editor.  I also read some stuff about how radio hosts lost their time slots when they began questioning the Iraq invasion on the air.  The Iraq mess is not a right wing or conservative mess.  It's a NEOCON mess.  I've got right wing friends and they HATE Bush. Buchanan's magazine is more negative about Bush than the Democrats now serving in Congress.  Conservatives hate Bush.  It's neocons that love him.

Yerdaddy

03-14-2007, 10:43 PM

Voting the way constituencies want you to vote is the essence of democracy. Now there are exceptions in representative democracy and times when an elected official has to vote what he thinks best and not what the majority thinks. There are also ways elected officials can influence public opinion through the bully pulpit. But if a Democrat were to oppose that resolution on principle knowing he would lose their seat in Congress he would NOT be serving his constituents because he would be ceding their seat in power to the Republicans - the ones who wanted this thing all along. That is NOT selling out. That is working within political reality which is the only responsible way for a politician to act. (Sometimes a pol can lean in an take one for the team but the tangible benefits better outweigh the political power sacraficed. But going into a disastrous war is no time to be giving up Congressional seats to the war party.)I agree with you that there were other things that the dems could have done that they didn't. I have been faulting them for being politically weak for years now. But there was nothing they could have done to stop the war. The public was informed by the mainstream print media of everything it needed to know - that the adminsitration was lying about the evidence of WMD and links to al-Qaeda and, more importantly, that there was no planning for the post-war phase - and yet the public supported the war by 75% at the time it was launched. Go back and read the floor speeches and congressional hearing transcripts from the time of the war til now and you'll see that the Democrats have been working harder than the liberals in the public to turn things around and not lose this war. But most liberals just rant and rave against both parties rather than keeping themselves genuinely informed and supporting the Democrats in their efforts to change things. And the vast majority of people who call themselves conservatives backed the president and his war until about six months ago - the 5% or so of Buchanan's supporters aside. They don't understand the difference betweent themselves and neoconservatives but they didn't care. This was a conservative war.

Yerdaddy

03-14-2007, 11:09 PM

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402444.html?sub=AR" target="_blank">Let's add to this debate a look at the latest failures of the Republicans' war.</a>The Pentagon yesterday released its bleakest assessment of Iraq yet, reporting record levels of violence and hardening sectarian divisions in the last quarter of 2006 as rival Sunni and Shiite militias waged campaigns of "sectarian cleansing" that forced as many as 9,000 civilians to flee the country each month.Weekly attacks in Iraq rose to more than 1,000 during the period and average daily casualties increased to more than 140, with Iraqi civilians bearing the brunt of the violence -- nearly 100 killed or wounded a day, according to statistics in the Pentagon's latest congressionally required quarterly report on security in Iraq.Those figures may represent as little as half of the true casualties because they include only violence observed by or reported to the U.S.-led military coalition, the report acknowledged. It cited a United Nations estimate, based on hospital reports, that more than 6,000 Iraqi civilians were killed or wounded in December alone.Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents vying to establish strongholds are driving the strife, especially in Baghdad, where they forcibly displaced residents and fueled a record 45 attacks a day, the report said. Unlike previous reports, the one released yesterday depicted some aspects of the Iraq conflict as a civil war.The report also indicated a delay in the coalition's effort to hand over security responsibility to Iraqi provinces, which U.S. commanders had previously said would be completed by the end of this year. The nation's second most violent province, the predominantly Sunni region of Anbar in western Iraq, will not be transferred to Iraqi control until early 2008, the report said.Part of the difficulty in making the transition to Iraqi control lies in weaknesses in the Iraqi security forces, the report indicated. Although nearly 329,000 Iraqi police officers and soldiers had been trained as of February, the number present for duty is only about half or two-thirds of that total. Security forces, while improving in some areas, remain hampered by militia infiltration, logistical deficiencies and corruption.Penetration by militias and criminal groups is also a growing problem among the corrections workers in Iraqi detention facilities, the report said. Detention centers in Iraq have substandard facilities and do a poor job in tracking detainees, it stated. Scores of the jails are overcrowded, with one housing three detainees for every bed.The report described some improvement in Iraq's economy, although it said progress is constrained by security problems. The World Bank projected that the 2006 gross domestic project reached $48.5 billion, rising 3 percent over the previous year's.However, it said inflation in 2006 averaged 50 percent, driven by fuel shortages.Fuel shortages. Remember who said "the reconstruction will be paid for with Iraqi oil revenue"?

Bulldogcakes

03-15-2007, 02:47 AM

HBox wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: HBox wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: again with semantics, then it's not a "war" that bush started. if you are going to slam what other people post, make sure your wording is impeccable They granted Bush the authority to declare war and he proceeded to do so. so its all bush's fault and not congress?sigh... Jesus fucking Christ.It was a fucking stupid thing to do to give Bush that authority. Everybody pretty much knew what he was going to do. But he was the one who ultimately declared war (which was at the center of that cheap little point you tried to score), and ran two of them into the ground. This war is on him and Republicans who let him do whatever he wanted. Some Democrats are an accessory at most.  How about this. Bush spearheaded the policy to go to war, and the congress went along with it. This is Bush's war, make no mistake about it. But Congress has been lax in its oversight and has refused to use its spending authority to get the administration off its ass about shifting policy/stragegy.But that of course, assumes that there is a strategy that will work out there. Which seems increasingly unlikely.

Dan 'Hampton

03-15-2007, 04:05 AM

Don't you all realize that by promoting hatred for the other party, both partys assure that a viable third party (On that could/would represent the average person at least at first) will never make an impact.  If they make their zealots hate the other side the zealots will never see that both parties are essentially the same.  F THEM ALL.

A.J.

03-15-2007, 04:10 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: And if you want a difference between the Democrats and Republicans - Iraq, Afghanistan and the wurr on turr. There's your fucking difference. The Democrats don't love to lose wars. I know.  We're still fighting LBJ's "War on Poverty" 40+ years later.

weekapaugjz

03-15-2007, 05:40 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: HBox wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: HBox wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: again with semantics, then it's not a "war" that bush started. if you are going to slam what other people post, make sure your wording is impeccable They granted Bush the authority to declare war and he proceeded to do so. so its all bush's fault and not congress?sigh... Jesus fucking Christ.It was a fucking stupid thing to do to give Bush that authority. Everybody pretty much knew what he was going to do. But he was the one who ultimately declared war (which was at the center of that cheap little point you tried to score), and ran two of them into the ground. This war is on him and Republicans who let him do whatever he wanted. Some Democrats are an accessory at most.  How about this. Bush spearheaded the policy to go to war, and the congress went along with it. This is Bush's war, make no mistake about it. But Congress has been lax in its oversight and has refused to use its spending authority to get the administration off its ass about shifting policy/stragegy.But that of course, assumes that there is a strategy that will work out there. Which seems increasingly unlikely.  i totally agree that bush spearheaded this war but it does not mean he is solely to blame.  the u.s. government has a system of checks and balances and separation of powers for a reason.  is bush more to blame than most? maybe.  but where were the dems in opposition from the start?  you can not place the blame for something of this scale on one person, to do so is too simplistic.

foodcourtdruide

03-15-2007, 05:42 AM

FMJeff wrote: <a href="http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Senate+Democrats%27+budget+le aves+war+funding+intact+-+USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=21528127&fb=Y&url=http %3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2F20 07-03-13-budget_N.htm%3Fcsp%3D34&partnerID=1660">http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Senate+Democrats%27+budget+le aves+war+funding+intact+-+USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=21528127&fb=Y&url=http %3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2F20 07-03-13-budget_N.htm%3Fcsp%3D34&partnerID=1660</a>Elected to be tough on the war, tough on Bush, Democrats prove today they are tough in words only.It makes me want to be a republican, this pathetic budget...what an embarassment. Thank you for doing exactly what Republicans said you would do....fall apart under mounting pressure of anti-troop/anti-american pundits claiming you dont support them...No backbone, no leadership. G-d how can one party be so dissapointing. It's clear the only reason democrats were elected was because they were not republicans. they have no plan, no consensus. Hm. I don't know if I disagree with their budget. They are currently unable to take troops out of Iraq, so if they cut war spending it would only hurt the troops already there. If they did cut spending in Iraq with the current troop levels, they would just be giving the republicans ammunition going into the '08 elections. The Democrats barely have control of the legislative branch, this budget to me just says that they don't expect to be able to reduce the number of troops in Iraq in 2008, which I agree with.I think you're being a little over-reactionary.

Knowledged_one

03-15-2007, 05:50 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: What a bunch of spineless schmucks.I'm never voting Democrat again.oh mojo i know better then that otherwise you and i would agree on an issue non chicago bears relatedthen we would have dogs and cats living togethermass hysteria

foodcourtdruide

03-15-2007, 05:50 AM

weekapaugjz wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: HBox wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: HBox wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: again with semantics, then it's not a "war" that bush started.if you are going to slam what other people post, make sure your wording is impeccable They granted Bush the authority to declare war and he proceeded to do so.so its all bush's fault and not congress?sigh... Jesus fucking Christ.It was a fucking stupid thing to do to give Bush that authority. Everybody pretty much knew what he was going to do. But he was the one who ultimately declared war (which was at the center of that cheap little point you tried to score), and ran two of them into the ground. This war is on him and Republicans who let him do whatever he wanted. Some Democrats are an accessory at most.  How about this. Bush spearheaded the policy to go to war, and the congress went along with it. This is Bush's war, make no mistake about it. But Congress has been lax in its oversight and has refused to use its spending authority to get the administration off its ass about shifting policy/stragegy.But that of course, assumes that there is a strategy that will work out there. Which seems increasingly unlikely.  i totally agree that bush spearheaded this war but it does not mean he is solely to blame.  the u.s. government has a system of checks and balances and separation of powers for a reason.  is bush more to blame than most? maybe.  but where were the dems in opposition from the start?  you can not place the blame for something of this scale on one person, to do so is too simplistic. As far as responsibility goes.. how responsible was the Bush Administration for this war compared to the democratic party? The democratic party was weak at the time and went along with it to please the American voters. Remember, false information was being put out by the Bush Administration which completely swayed our opinions of invading Iraq. Whether it was intentional or not, it was still false.

Knowledged_one

03-15-2007, 05:52 AM

Golfman wrote: All politicians blow, that's why they're politicians, nobody will hire their lousy asses. hate to burst your balloon but we the public elect them so we in essence hire them.........duhand Jeff props for posting an article and then giving us your thought out opinion so much better then busybeeman

Knowledged_one

03-15-2007, 06:00 AM

epo wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: The 2002 Congressional Authorization of Force was not a Declaration of War, which is what Congress has the power over. again with semantics, then it's not a "war" that bush started.if you are going to slam what other people post, make sure your wording is impeccable They granted Bush the authority to declare war and he proceeded to do so. so its all bush's fault and not congress?CNN Headline:  March 19, 2003, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/">Bush Declares War</a>I didn't see Congress in that Headline.I'm tired of this argument and going to bed.   oh well if CNN reported it then it must be trueYou blast Fox but credit CNNHello Pot its the kettle calling it says you are black

foodcourtdruide

03-15-2007, 06:47 AM

Knowledged_one wrote: epo wrote: weekapaugjz wrote: The 2002 Congressional Authorization of Force was not a Declaration of War, which is what Congress has the power over. again with semantics, then it's not a "war" that bush started.if you are going to slam what other people post, make sure your wording is impeccable They granted Bush the authority to declare war and he proceeded to do so. so its all bush's fault and not congress?CNN Headline:  March 19, 2003, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.int.bush.transcript/">Bush Declares War</a>I didn't see Congress in that Headline.I'm tired of this argument and going to bed.   oh well if CNN reported it then it must be trueYou blast Fox but credit CNNHello Pot its the kettle calling it says you are blackI'll ask again.. though it's hopeless. Why do you think CNN has a liberal bias? What leads to this conclusion.

Knowledged_one

03-15-2007, 06:54 AM

It wasnt called the Clinton News Network for nothingOr how about whenever CNN posts a picture of any Republican it is always the most unflattering picture trying to make the person look dumbOr the fact that CNN was last to call the Bush re-election win over Kerry Should i go on

TheMojoPin

03-15-2007, 07:00 AM

HBox wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: HBox wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: Se7en wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: What a bunch of spineless schmucks.I'm never voting Democrat again.<img src="http://www.planearium2.de/bilder/gaststars-condit2.jpg" border="0" width="73" height="100" />"LIAR! YOU'RE A GODDAMN LIAR!"Well, considering I only have three times in all the various level elections I've voted in in the last 9 years, it's not gonna be too difficult. Granted, I was a bit dramatic...I don't rule out any party completely, but this just really solidified how they've so totally alienated me. I wasn't expecting them to suddenly shut down all of the money and start yanking troops out right away, but I was definitely hoping they would at least begin taking steps away from the disaster Bush has made. Instead they did absolutely nothing.To be fair they haven't actually done anything yet. The House proposal supposedly mandates troop withdrawal by as soon as October 2007 and at least by August 2008. Neither proposal has been passed yet. It probably sounds shallow, but I was caring more about the money than the men here. I don't think anyone was expecting troops to come home this fast, but I expected more of a fight against the current level of spending.Then I disagree. If you are going to leave them there you should fund them fully. Especially since they are already problems affording armor and such. As for corruption and overcharging its going to take time to get to the bottom of all that since the previous leadership did nothing at all. By the time they get to the bottom of all that I hope we are long gone. I wanted a closer look at the money, because I don't think nearly enough of it is used directly for the troops.

Dougie Brootal

03-15-2007, 07:04 AM

Knowledged_one wrote: TheMojoPin wrote: What a bunch of spineless schmucks.I'm never voting Democrat again. "dogs and cats living togethermass hysteria!"<img src="http://images.quizilla.com/H/HalRayner/1067397071_uresgbpete.jpg" border="0" width="720" height="306" />

Knowledged_one

03-15-2007, 07:07 AM

Congrats to you for getting that reference

Dougie Brootal

03-15-2007, 07:08 AM

Knowledged_one wrote: Congrats to you for getting that reference i said that in a meeting the other day! best movie ever!!! <a href="http://null/name/nm0000195/">Dr. Peter Venkman</a>: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. <a href="http://null/name/nm0546868/">Mayor</a>: What do you mean, "biblical"? <a href="http://null/name/nm0000101/">Dr Ray Stantz</a>: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff. <a href="http://null/name/nm0000195/">Dr. Peter Venkman</a>: Exactly. <a href="http://null/name/nm0000101/">Dr Ray Stantz</a>: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. <a href="http://null/name/nm0000601/">Dr. Egon Spengler</a>: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... <a href="http://null/name/nm0001368/">Winston Zeddemore</a>: The dead rising from the grave. <a href="http://null/name/nm0000195/">Dr. Peter Venkman</a>: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria! aaaaand scene!

This message was edited by douggrasso on 3-15-07 @ 11:10 AM

foodcourtdruide

03-15-2007, 07:41 AM

Knowledged_one wrote: It wasnt called the Clinton News Network for nothingOr how about whenever CNN posts a picture of any Republican it is always the most unflattering picture trying to make the person look dumbOr the fact that CNN was last to call the Bush re-election win over Kerry Should i go onYes, preferably until you make a valid point. 1. The right-wing called it the Clinton News Network. This is not proof of it having a liberal bias.2. This is clearly your opinion and I couldn't disagree more. Most times they post a picture of any political figure they are mid-speech and usually have their mouths open. The reason Karl Rove looks weird in pictures on cnn.com is because he is not photogenic, the same can be said for Ted Kennedy. 3. What does this have to do with anything? If Bush won, what impact would reporting it late have on the election? Here is a really good article about the election coverage:<a href="http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3783">http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3783</a>It details who called what when and why. CNN not calling Ohio for Bush early because of provisional ballots being in question makes complete sense and seemed responsible. ABC and CBS followed suit. Also, CNN made the decision early on not to report favorable Kerry exit polling data, which one could argue may have been pro-Bush. And if you're wondering about the bias of this article.. it blasts cnn for having a distracting set and praises foxnews for having the clearest most informative set.

HBox

03-15-2007, 07:42 AM

foodcourtdruide

03-15-2007, 07:45 AM

HBox wrote: Knowledged_one wrote: It wasnt called the Clinton News Network for nothingOr how about whenever CNN posts a picture of any Republican it is always the most unflattering picture trying to make the person look dumbOr the fact that CNN was last to call the Bush re-election win over KerryShould i go onHe posted a link to a fucking transcript you moron.Aw man, now this is going to deteriorate into a mud-slinging contest and he's going to ignore my points above.

HBox

03-15-2007, 07:46 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: HBox wrote:sigh... Jesus fucking Christ.It was a fucking stupid thing to do to give Bush that authority. Everybody pretty much knew what he was going to do. But he was the one who ultimately declared war (which was at the center of that cheap little point you tried to score), and ran two of them into the ground. This war is on him and Republicans who let him do whatever he wanted. Some Democrats are an accessory at most.  How about this. Bush spearheaded the policy to go to war, and the congress went along with it. This is Bush's war, make no mistake about it. But Congress has been lax in its oversight and has refused to use its spending authority to get the administration off its ass about shifting policy/stragegy.But that of course, assumes that there is a strategy that will work out there. Which seems increasingly unlikely. And Congress has been Republican. They got in line with Bush. They were the ones who let him do whatever he wanted. Democrats couldn't have stopped them if they tried, and sometimes they actually tried.Is there some kind of mindset out there that the Democrats were supposed to come into power and fix everything right away? They've been in office for only 3 months.

Zorro

03-15-2007, 08:03 AM

HBox wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: HBox wrote: sigh... Jesus fucking Christ.It was a fucking stupid thing to do to give Bush that authority. Everybody pretty much knew what he was going to do. But he was the one who ultimately declared war (which was at the center of that cheap little point you tried to score), and ran two of them into the ground. This war is on him and Republicans who let him do whatever he wanted. Some Democrats are an accessory at most.  How about this. Bush spearheaded the policy to go to war, and the congress went along with it. This is Bush's war, make no mistake about it. But Congress has been lax in its oversight and has refused to use its spending authority to get the administration off its ass about shifting policy/stragegy.But that of course, assumes that there is a strategy that will work out there. Which seems increasingly unlikely. And Congress has been Republican. They got in line with Bush. They were the ones who let him do whatever he wanted. Democrats couldn't have stopped them if they tried, and sometimes they actually tried. Is there some kind of mindset out there that the Democrats were supposed to come into power and fix everything right away? They've been in office for only 3 months. No one's asking them to do everything. Just one thing. All they have to do is offer a vote to cutoff of war funding. It's not complicated, it's not time consuming and if they wanted it it would be done today. But they like there Republican couterparts are chickenshit hacks whose only interest is in lining their pockets and those of their corporate buddies. What you, I or any American wants is meaningless unless of course you're wealthy or famous

HBox

03-15-2007, 08:12 AM

Zorro wrote: HBox wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: HBox wrote: sigh... Jesus fucking Christ.It was a fucking stupid thing to do to give Bush that authority. Everybody pretty much knew what he was going to do. But he was the one who ultimately declared war (which was at the center of that cheap little point you tried to score), and ran two of them into the ground. This war is on him and Republicans who let him do whatever he wanted. Some Democrats are an accessory at most.  How about this. Bush spearheaded the policy to go to war, and the congress went along with it. This is Bush's war, make no mistake about it. But Congress has been lax in its oversight and has refused to use its spending authority to get the administration off its ass about shifting policy/stragegy.But that of course, assumes that there is a strategy that will work out there. Which seems increasingly unlikely. And Congress has been Republican. They got in line with Bush. They were the ones who let him do whatever he wanted. Democrats couldn't have stopped them if they tried, and sometimes they actually tried. Is there some kind of mindset out there that the Democrats were supposed to come into power and fix everything right away? They've been in office for only 3 months. No one's asking them to do everything. Just one thing. All they have to do is offer a vote to cutoff of war funding. It's not complicated, it's not time consuming and if they wanted it it would be done today. But they like there Republican couterparts are chickenshit hacks whose only interest is in lining their pockets and those of their corporate buddies. What you, I or any American wants is meaningless unless of course you're wealthy or famousThey CAN'T do that. Senate Republicans and Joe Lieberman would filibuster and it would never even come to vote. They might even filibuster the House plan calling for a withdrawal within 12 - 18 months.

Zorro

03-15-2007, 09:48 AM

HBox wrote: Zorro wrote: HBox wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: HBox wrote: sigh... Jesus fucking Christ.It was a fucking stupid thing to do to give Bush that authority. Everybody pretty much knew what he was going to do. But he was the one who ultimately declared war (which was at the center of that cheap little point you tried to score), and ran two of them into the ground. This war is on him and Republicans who let him do whatever he wanted. Some Democrats are an accessory at most.  How about this. Bush spearheaded the policy to go to war, and the congress went along with it. This is Bush's war, make no mistake about it. But Congress has been lax in its oversight and has refused to use its spending authority to get the administration off its ass about shifting policy/stragegy.But that of course, assumes that there is a strategy that will work out there. Which seems increasingly unlikely. And Congress has been Republican. They got in line with Bush. They were the ones who let him do whatever he wanted. Democrats couldn't have stopped them if they tried, and sometimes they actually tried. Is there some kind of mindset out there that the Democrats were supposed to come into power and fix everything right away? They've been in office for only 3 months. No one's asking them to do everything. Just one thing. All they have to do is offer a vote to cutoff of war funding. It's not complicated, it's not time consuming and if they wanted it it would be done today. But they like there Republican couterparts are chickenshit hacks whose only interest is in lining their pockets and those of their corporate buddies. What you, I or any American wants is meaningless unless of course you're wealthy or famousThey CAN'T do that. Senate Republicans and Joe Lieberman would filibuster and it would never even come to vote. They might even filibuster the House plan calling for a withdrawal within 12 - 18 months. They can "offer" a vote anytime. If it gets blocked/knocked down then so be it, but take a stand. They talk all sorts of shit and do nothing. If it were their kids in Iraq this thing would have ended the day they took office

Knowledged_one

03-15-2007, 10:47 AM

HBox wrote: Knowledged_one wrote: It wasnt called the Clinton News Network for nothingOr how about whenever CNN posts a picture of any Republican it is always the most unflattering picture trying to make the person look dumbOr the fact that CNN was last to call the Bush re-election win over KerryShould i go onHe posted a link to a fucking transcript you moron.When you resort to name calling it truly shows your ignorance        Loser

HBox

03-15-2007, 10:51 AM

Knowledged_one wrote: HBox wrote: Knowledged_one wrote: It wasnt called the Clinton News Network for nothingOr how about whenever CNN posts a picture of any Republican it is always the most unflattering picture trying to make the person look dumbOr the fact that CNN was last to call the Bush re-election win over KerryShould i go onHe posted a link to a fucking transcript you moron.When you resort to name calling it truly shows your ignorance        LoserThen enlighten me. How can any news organization show an ideological slant by posting a fucking transcript.

FMJeff

03-15-2007, 11:02 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: They should use the time to hold hearings exposing how the Bush White House lied us into this war and then lost it through criminal neglegence. That would be great if Pelosi didn't announce the Democrats were not going to use thier power to be devisive, that this would be a new era of cooperation and understanding and peace and la di da. And I don't buy the arguement that playing it safe is the best way to get you re-elected. They can do a lot about Iraq. They can raise the level of public debate. They can litligate like they dont care about being elected. They can be STRONG and not worry about thier JOBS. You can't run a country if all you're doing is watching your back for the hope that what you do doesn't bite you in the ass later.People talk about political suicide. Political suicide is true leadership, because its demonstrating to the people that you dont care what you look like so long as you take a stand and execute your position to the best of your abiliy. It's about promises made, Yerdaddy. They know full well why they are there. They can do A LOT more than you think if they had the stones.

Knowledged_one

03-15-2007, 11:05 AM

Not to try and argue with you Jeff but couldnt you take this statement:People talk about political suicide. Political suicide is true leadership, because its demonstrating to the people that you dont care what you look like so long as you take a stand and execute your position to the best of your abiliy.And apply it to Bush's stance on Iraq?

FMJeff

03-15-2007, 11:06 AM

HBox

03-15-2007, 11:10 AM

And apply it to Bush's stance on Iraq?He had plenty of support when he started this war. The majority didn't turn on him until his second term. Now there is no consequences for him.

FMJeff

03-15-2007, 11:12 AM

Knowledged_one wrote: Not to try and argue with you Jeff but couldnt you take this statement:People talk about political suicide. Political suicide is true leadership, because its demonstrating to the people that you dont care what you look like so long as you take a stand and execute your position to the best of your abiliy.And apply it to Bush's stance on Iraq?Absolutely. I will be first to admit Bush is a leader. But that doesn't necessarily make him a GOOD leader. You can be resolute and wrong at the same time. I do not fault Bush for making a decision and standing by it. I fault him for making a bad decision based on flimsy evidence. They are two different things, entirely.

Knowledged_one

03-15-2007, 11:12 AM

HBox wrote: And apply it to Bush's stance on Iraq? He had plenty of support when he started this war. The majority didn't turn on him until his second term. Now there is no consequences for him. So you are saying that the president of this country doesnt care about things because he is done after this term, that is true lunacy

ralphbxny

03-15-2007, 11:15 AM

HBox

03-15-2007, 11:16 AM

Knowledged_one wrote: HBox wrote: And apply it to Bush's stance on Iraq? He had plenty of support when he started this war. The majority didn't turn on him until his second term. Now there is no consequences for him. So you are saying that the president of this country doesnt care about things because he is done after this term, that is true lunacyNO. I said he has no consequences. He doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected. When he did have to worry about that he was on the side of the majority. Now he thinks he's doing the right thing and he's on the other side. It's not the bravest thing to do when there will be no consequences. His political career is over in 2008 regardless.

Zorro

03-15-2007, 11:17 AM

FMJeff wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: They should use the time to hold hearings exposing how the Bush White House lied us into this war and then lost it through criminal neglegence. That would be great if Pelosi didn't announce the Democrats were not going to use thier power to be devisive, that this would be a new era of cooperation and understanding and peace and la di da. And I don't buy the arguement that playing it safe is the best way to get you re-elected. They can do a lot about Iraq. They can raise the level of public debate. They can litligate like they dont care about being elected. They can be STRONG and not worry about thier JOBS. You can't run a country if all you're doing is watching your back for the hope that what you do doesn't bite you in the ass later.People talk about political suicide. Political suicide is true leadership, because its demonstrating to the people that you dont care what you look like so long as you take a stand and execute your position to the best of your abiliy. It's about promises made, Yerdaddy. They know full well why they are there. They can do A LOT more than you think if they had the stones.Their unwillingness to hold hearings has more to do with their complicit behavior than any attempt to avoid being divisive. That's just my opinion.

This message was edited by Zorro on 3-15-07 @ 5:19 PM

DonInNC

03-15-2007, 11:23 AM

Zorro wrote: They're unwillingness to hold hearings has more to do with their complicit behavior than any attempt to avoid being divisive. That's just my opinion.Bingo.

Knowledged_one

03-15-2007, 11:24 AM

FMJeff

03-15-2007, 11:33 AM

I don't care if they were "complicit". That's harsh language anyway. I don't blame a single Democrat for voting for the war in a post 9/11 world. Really. I probably would have as well. I was mad, we all were mad. Afghanistan fell like a house of cards. There was no fight, no vengeance. But here we had Saddam, resistant, proud, middle finger to the world, yeah, I wanted to fight him too. Let's not kid ourselves that this was about WMD's. Americans wanted to fuck somebody up who could fight back a little. Saddam was ASKING for it. Wrong attitude to have at the WRONG point in history. You don't fuck with an angry country with an itchy trigger finger. He should've let us in, he should've been more transparent, he should've been more accomodating. For that, his country and his own life were FUBAR'd. Of course that's no legitmite reason to invade a country. I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that's what I think happened. And no, I don't blame any Democrat for feeling that way. War is inevitable sometimes when both sides refuse to back down. What we saw in Iraq was a scaled up version of what I see in Belmar every summer...two thick necked guidos posturing until one throws a fist. This country is a bully. It's the truth. We posture in every way one could posture. Best athletes, best technology, best medicine, best military..best best best best. It's our bravado that defines us. Bush has bravado. He is also a fool. The Democrats have displayed absolutely no bravado whatsoever. It is unamerican. It is spineless. It is calculated timidity, and it is weakness. This is not to say I like the Republican ideology better, by no means. I am a Democrat, after all. I believe in big government that does good. But if you're going to be left wing or right wing about anything, do it to the max. You have POWER now, Democrats, be powerful. Be mighty. Do what you need to do, what you were elected to do. If you fail, then you were supposed to fail. If you lose your jobs come next term, than that's what the American people wanted. But I think the American people respect leadership more than you think, and all this political two-stepping is doing nothing more than alienating.

keithy_19

03-15-2007, 12:03 PM

HBox wrote: Knowledged_one wrote: HBox wrote: And apply it to Bush's stance on Iraq? He had plenty of support when he started this war. The majority didn't turn on him until his second term. Now there is no consequences for him. So you are saying that the president of this country doesnt care about things because he is done after this term, that is true lunacyNO. I said he has no consequences. He doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected. When he did have to worry about that he was on the side of the majority. Now he thinks he's doing the right thing and he's on the other side. It's not the bravest thing to do when there will be no consequences. His political career is over in 2008 regardless. Which is why, I would think George W. Buhs should be doing so much more himself. Be a stronger leader. When there is another car bombing that killed American troops, get on the TV and tell the world that the people behind the bombing WILL be KILLED for what they did. Not only the person involved, their WIFE and CHILDREN will also meet the same fate. Maybe if America started acting a little bit more badass we'd be better off.Sorry to derail the thread in anyway, whatsoever.

TheArchies

03-15-2007, 12:13 PM

Wow, I came in late. Well, I agree with FMJeff. Big Government is great for doing good for the people. I mean look at the fcc.It's the hallmark for what big government does to protect the children. My god, FDR was a visionary.  The people are too stupid to spend the money they make, let the government do that for them. I swear, we will win this war on poverty. Look, the all caring governemt gets to spend billions more in the 2008 budget so we can finally stamp out the homeless nd the poor and distraught.You know what, I don't need a house, or a car, or anything, I think that the big, caring governemt should take all of my paycheck, because, without them, I don't know how I would get up at 5:30 in the morning, and sing the praises of the almighty, caring, loving U.S. government that allows me to breathe the air, walk the earth, and live. I owe them everything! Thank you PAPA(Stalin) governemt, thank you so much. Maybe I should dress in brown shirts, and  with a picture of the almighty Bush, or Pelosi, sing the national anthem while a military parade goes by.I love the government. I love big caring loving government.Democrats can care for my money, and republicans can care for my corpse.

HBox

03-15-2007, 12:19 PM

TheArchies wrote: Wow, I came in late. Well, I agree with FMJeff. Big Government is great for doing good for the people. I mean look at the fcc.It's the hallmark for what big government does to protect the children. My god, FDR was a visionary. The people are too stupid to spend the money they make, let the government do that for them. I swear, we will win this war on poverty. Look, the all caring governemt gets to spend billions more in the 2008 budget so we can finally stamp out the homeless nd the poor and distraught.You know what, I don't need a house, or a car, or anything, I think that the big, caring governemt should take all of my paycheck, because, without them, I don't know how I would get up at 5:30 in the morning, and sing the praises of the almighty, caring, loving U.S. government that allows me to breathe the air, walk the earth, and live. I owe them everything! Thank you PAPA(Stalin) governemt, thank you so much. Maybe I should dress in brown shirts, and with a picture of the almighty Bush, or Pelosi, sing the national anthem while a military parade goes by.I love the government. I love big caring loving government.Democrats can care for my money, and republicans can care for my corpse.Thank god. I was beginning to think a troll wasn't going to show up. Whew.

keithy_19

03-15-2007, 12:22 PM

HBox wrote: TheArchies wrote: Wow, I came in late. Well, I agree with FMJeff. Big Government is great for doing good for the people. I mean look at the fcc.It's the hallmark for what big government does to protect the children. My god, FDR was a visionary. The people are too stupid to spend the money they make, let the government do that for them. I swear, we will win this war on poverty. Look, the all caring governemt gets to spend billions more in the 2008 budget so we can finally stamp out the homeless nd the poor and distraught.You know what, I don't need a house, or a car, or anything, I think that the big, caring governemt should take all of my paycheck, because, without them, I don't know how I would get up at 5:30 in the morning, and sing the praises of the almighty, caring, loving U.S. government that allows me to breathe the air, walk the earth, and live. I owe them everything! Thank you PAPA(Stalin) governemt, thank you so much. Maybe I should dress in brown shirts, and with a picture of the almighty Bush, or Pelosi, sing the national anthem while a military parade goes by.I love the government. I love big caring loving government.Democrats can care for my money, and republicans can care for my corpse. Thank god. I was beginning to think a troll wasn't going to show up. Whew.<img src="http://home.socal.rr.com/gbaker/troll.jpg" border="0" width="480" height="640" />

FMJeff

03-15-2007, 12:36 PM

TheArchies wrote: Wow, I came in late. Well, I agree with FMJeff. Big Government is great for doing good for the people. I mean look at the fcc.It's the hallmark for what big government does to protect the children. My god, FDR was a visionary. The people are too stupid to spend the money they make, let the government do that for them. I swear, we will win this war on poverty. Look, the all caring governemt gets to spend billions more in the 2008 budget so we can finally stamp out the homeless nd the poor and distraught.You know what, I don't need a house, or a car, or anything, I think that the big, caring governemt should take all of my paycheck, because, without them, I don't know how I would get up at 5:30 in the morning, and sing the praises of the almighty, caring, loving U.S. government that allows me to breathe the air, walk the earth, and live. I owe them everything! Thank you PAPA(Stalin) governemt, thank you so much. Maybe I should dress in brown shirts, and with a picture of the almighty Bush, or Pelosi, sing the national anthem while a military parade goes by.I love the government. I love big caring loving government.Democrats can care for my money, and republicans can care for my corpse.well thatscertainly a twisting of my meaning. sarcastic much? i said i like big government when it does good. there are countries on this planet that have governments that help thier people in a predominately positive way.

BLZBUBBA

03-15-2007, 12:39 PM

I recall the last press conference leading up to the war.  The very last of a scant few Bush held prior to the invasion...There was not a single tough question.  NOT ONE.  All the talk about the liberal media is just that...talk.  All the major news outlets are controlled by huge corporations.  If anyone thinks they're victims of a liberal spin please be specific. It's the media's job to be skeptical and question policy.  That's their job.  It's not their job to play along.  So while I think the Dems could have been tougher on Iraq I fault the media as well.  Maybe even more so.And as far as Bush and company go...How about going to the CIA for intel...and totally brushing off anything running contrary to what they didn't want to hear?  In fact they got pissed off when there were doubts expressed about WMD evidence.  You had inspectors over there screaming there were no WMDs and the war was not necessary.   Why not just flood the place with inspectors?  Or why not just target these weapons caches and destroy them.  We know why.  THEY DIDN'T EXIST.

Yerdaddy

03-15-2007, 11:45 PM

foodcourtdruide wrote: Knowledged_one wrote: It wasnt called the Clinton News Network for nothingOr how about whenever CNN posts a picture of any Republican it is always the most unflattering picture trying to make the person look dumbOr the fact that CNN was last to call the Bush re-election win over Kerry Should i go onYes, preferably until you make a valid point. 1. The right-wing called it the Clinton News Network. This is not proof of it having a liberal bias.2. This is clearly your opinion and I couldn't disagree more. Most times they post a picture of any political figure they are mid-speech and usually have their mouths open. The reason Karl Rove looks weird in pictures on cnn.com is because he is not photogenic, the same can be said for Ted Kennedy. 3. What does this have to do with anything? If Bush won, what impact would reporting it late have on the election? Here is a really good article about the election coverage:<a href="http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3783">http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3783</a>It details who called what when and why. CNN not calling Ohio for Bush early because of provisional ballots being in question makes complete sense and seemed responsible. ABC and CBS followed suit. Also, CNN made the decision early on not to report favorable Kerry exit polling data, which one could argue may have been pro-Bush. And if you're wondering about the bias of this article.. it blasts cnn for having a distracting set and praises foxnews for having the clearest most informative set. Right! It's not CNN's fault that Karl Rove looks like Quato from Total Recal.<img src="http://schema-root.org/people/political/advisor/karl_rove/karl_rove_3.jpg" border="0" width="220" height="312" />  <img src="http://www.warpedimage.com/images/quato-hq-sm.jpg" border="0" width="256" height="192" />

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 3-16-07 @ 3:50 AM

foodcourtdruide

03-16-2007, 05:12 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: foodcourtdruide wrote: Knowledged_one wrote: It wasnt called the Clinton News Network for nothingOr how about whenever CNN posts a picture of any Republican it is always the most unflattering picture trying to make the person look dumbOr the fact that CNN was last to call the Bush re-election win over Kerry Should i go onYes, preferably until you make a valid point. 1. The right-wing called it the Clinton News Network. This is not proof of it having a liberal bias.2. This is clearly your opinion and I couldn't disagree more. Most times they post a picture of any political figure they are mid-speech and usually have their mouths open. The reason Karl Rove looks weird in pictures on cnn.com is because he is not photogenic, the same can be said for Ted Kennedy. 3. What does this have to do with anything? If Bush won, what impact would reporting it late have on the election? Here is a really good article about the election coverage:<a href="http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3783">http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3783</a>It details who called what when and why. CNN not calling Ohio for Bush early because of provisional ballots being in question makes complete sense and seemed responsible. ABC and CBS followed suit. Also, CNN made the decision early on not to report favorable Kerry exit polling data, which one could argue may have been pro-Bush. And if you're wondering about the bias of this article.. it blasts cnn for having a distracting set and praises foxnews for having the clearest most informative set. Right! It's not CNN's fault that Karl Rove looks like Quato from Total Recal.<img src="http://schema-root.org/people/political/advisor/karl_rove/karl_rove_3.jpg" border="0" width="220" height="312" />  <img src="http://www.warpedimage.com/images/quato-hq-sm.jpg" border="0" width="256" height="192" />This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 3-16-07 @ 3:50 AM They have the same exact hairline and chin(s).

foodcourtdruide

03-16-2007, 05:40 AM

BLZBUBBA wrote: I recall the last press conference leading up to the war.  The very last of a scant few Bush held prior to the invasion...There was not a single tough question.  NOT ONE.  All the talk about the liberal media is just that...talk.  All the major news outlets are controlled by huge corporations.  If anyone thinks they're victims of a liberal spin please be specific. It's the media's job to be skeptical and question policy.  That's their job.  It's not their job to play along.  So while I think the Dems could have been tougher on Iraq I fault the media as well.  Maybe even more so.And as far as Bush and company go...How about going to the CIA for intel...and totally brushing off anything running contrary to what they didn't want to hear?  In fact they got pissed off when there were doubts expressed about WMD evidence.  You had inspectors over there screaming there were no WMDs and the war was not necessary.   Why not just flood the place with inspectors?  Or why not just target these weapons caches and destroy them.  We know why.  THEY DIDN'T EXIST.The funny thing is that they did flood the place with inspectors, but when they did all the American people heard about was how ineffective the U.N. is and there was a smear campaign against Hans Blix. The Bush Administration public relations machine. Carnies and rubes..

Yerdaddy

03-16-2007, 05:44 AM

Well it seems we've finally achieved bi-partisanship on the Iraq question: it's the democrats' fault and they should be punished. And yet another mission accomplished! My question for those of you abandoning the Democratic party over this one proposal: if your support is that flimsy that it hinges on whether or not they sacrafice their newfound majority in Congress for the sake of a dangerous ploy to rest some small amount of power from the President why should they even bother to try to win your support anyway? You want them to be martyrs and you're willing to hand back the entire government to the Republicans if Dems don't win every battle one of them dreams up. And Europeans still ask me why Bush wins elections. Twice.

Knowledged_one

03-16-2007, 05:48 AM

Yerdaddy

03-16-2007, 05:58 AM

Knowledged_one wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Well it seems we've finally achieved bi-partisanship on the Iraq question: it's the democrats' fault and they should be punished. And yet another mission accomplished! My question for those of you abandoning the Democratic party over this one proposal: if your support is that flimsy that it hinges on whether or not they sacrafice their newfound majority in Congress for the sake of a dangerous ploy to rest some small amount of power from the President why should they even bother to try to win your support anyway? You want them to be martyrs and you're willing to hand back the entire government to the Republicans if Dems don't win every battle one of them dreams up. And Europeans still ask me why Bush wins elections. Twice.Well boo fuckin hooHBox didn't call you a moron for nothing.

Knowledged_one

03-16-2007, 06:01 AM

Ohhhhh good one Potsie

Yerdaddy

03-16-2007, 06:10 AM

You're retarded.

Knowledged_one

03-16-2007, 06:15 AM

wow you should do stand up

Yerdaddy

03-16-2007, 06:26 AM

You shouldn't stand up without a batting helmet.

FMJeff

03-16-2007, 07:58 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: Well it seems we've finally achieved bi-partisanship on the Iraq question: it's the democrats' fault and they should be punished. And yet another mission accomplished! My question for those of you abandoning the Democratic party over this one proposal: if your support is that flimsy that it hinges on whether or not they sacrafice their newfound majority in Congress for the sake of a dangerous ploy to rest some small amount of power from the President why should they even bother to try to win your support anyway? You want them to be martyrs and you're willing to hand back the entire government to the Republicans if Dems don't win every battle one of them dreams up. And Europeans still ask me why Bush wins elections. Twice. I want them to be really, really aggresive, not only in words, but in action. I want them to come up with a response to "You're not supporting the troops" that doesnt' smell like retreat. Say what you will about Republicans, but they play the game better. They work the system to thier own advantage and get what THEY want done. Democrats need to learn to do the same. It is ok to use Republican tactics in this fucked up country if it means good is done. The ends do justify means. That is the rwality of the world we live in. Moral highgrounds have no place in politics. If Democrats are not supporting the troops, well, Republicans are killing the troops. I don't know. I'm not a politico. I don't want them to be martyrs. I would love for them to accomplish what they need to do without destroying thier chances for relection, of course. That would be ideal. The problem with public service is inevitably one has to serve their own interests. Bills have to be paid, children need to eat, etc. There's also more human reasons...thier legacy, public perception, ego. A public servant cannot always do what's right because it may impact those interests. This is also a reality most citizens don't understand. How does one reconcile personal and public interests? It's a very tricky game. I get it. Fortunately, it's not my responsibility to play. It's theres. I'm a citizen. I pay them to work for me. I elect them. Like I say to my employees, "Figure it out." If they can't hack it, it's time to find those that can. If it can't be done, well...then say it can't be done, and don't make promises it can. But at the very least, don't give you opposition what they want. This budget is capitulation on paper.

TheMojoPin

03-16-2007, 08:36 AM

What Jeff said...kinda.  I was really just hoping that they'd show they'd at least fight to present something different than what we've been stuck with on this issue.  Go down swinging if need to be, even if it's a lost cause.  I know it was a longshot hope, but hey, it would have been a nice change of pace.

angrymissy

03-16-2007, 08:39 AM

foodcourtdruide wrote: BLZBUBBA wrote: I recall the last press conference leading up to the war. The very last of a scant few Bush held prior to the invasion...There was not a single tough question. NOT ONE. All the talk about the liberal media is just that...talk. All the major news outlets are controlled by huge corporations. If anyone thinks they're victims of a liberal spin please be specific. It's the media's job to be skeptical and question policy. That's their job. It's not their job to play along. So while I think the Dems could have been tougher on Iraq I fault the media as well. Maybe even more so.And as far as Bush and company go...How about going to the CIA for intel...and totally brushing off anything running contrary to what they didn't want to hear? In fact they got pissed off when there were doubts expressed about WMD evidence. You had inspectors over there screaming there were no WMDs and the war was not necessary. Why not just flood the place with inspectors? Or why not just target these weapons caches and destroy them. We know why. THEY DIDN'T EXIST.The funny thing is that they did flood the place with inspectors, but when they did all the American people heard about was how ineffective the U.N. is and there was a smear campaign against Hans Blix. The Bush Administration public relations machine. Carnies and rubes..  <img src="http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/hans.jpg" border="0" width="450" height="301" />

foodcourtdruide

03-16-2007, 09:11 AM

angrymissy wrote: foodcourtdruide wrote: BLZBUBBA wrote: I recall the last press conference leading up to the war. The very last of a scant few Bush held prior to the invasion...There was not a single tough question. NOT ONE. All the talk about the liberal media is just that...talk. All the major news outlets are controlled by huge corporations. If anyone thinks they're victims of a liberal spin please be specific. It's the media's job to be skeptical and question policy. That's their job. It's not their job to play along. So while I think the Dems could have been tougher on Iraq I fault the media as well. Maybe even more so.And as far as Bush and company go...How about going to the CIA for intel...and totally brushing off anything running contrary to what they didn't want to hear? In fact they got pissed off when there were doubts expressed about WMD evidence. You had inspectors over there screaming there were no WMDs and the war was not necessary. Why not just flood the place with inspectors? Or why not just target these weapons caches and destroy them. We know why. THEY DIDN'T EXIST.The funny thing is that they did flood the place with inspectors, but when they did all the American people heard about was how ineffective the U.N. is and there was a smear campaign against Hans Blix. The Bush Administration public relations machine. Carnies and rubes..  <img src="http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/hans.jpg" border="0" width="450" height="301" />lol Where'd you get that pic?!

badmonkey

03-16-2007, 04:27 PM

FMJeff wrote: I want them to be really, really aggresive, not only in words, but in action. *snip* I don't want them to be martyrs. I would love for them to accomplish what they need to do <strike>without destroying thier chances for relection, of course</strike>. That would be ideal. *snip*But at the very least, don't give you opposition what they want.  My brother-in-law died in Iraq. What you just said about the democrats pretty much sums up nicely how I feel about the military's mission in Iraq. Now can we stop all the screaming about the evil soldiers murdering Iraqi civilians and let our military kick ass the way they have been trained. Can we untie their hands from behind their backs and stop screaming about heavy handed tactics and "torture"? Can we let the Generals who have called for more troops have the troops they feel they need to complete the mission so that those that have sacrificed life and limb for this war do not have to die for nothing? These guys see the news when they come home and their main complaint is that what they see here on tv is not what they see in Iraq. They hear congressmen like Durbin call them Nazi's. They hear people saying their wasting their time and their lives. They hear that their friends have died in vain for a lost cause. This destroys their morale and sends them back into combat feeling like the American people do not support them. I understand that it's not that you don't support them, you just don't want them to be killed. You don't understand that they want to win this and we should let them. I want the troops to come home too, but I also want them to win. I don't think anybody in congress voted for a loss and I don't think they want to start now. If we pull out of this one before it's won, how many Iraqi's that supported us will be murdered for it? If the Democrats want to stay in the majority, the only solution is to free the soldiers to complete the mission and win the war. If they can do that, I will happily vote for them in the next election because they will have done it right where the Republicans have fucked it up.If you think the world doesn't respect us now, wait until we've pulled our military out of a fight with a bunch of mostly untrained guys dressed as civilians. Then when we get into our next thing with Iran and N. Korea, why should they worry about us and/or our military?  We won't let them fight anyway so nothing to worry about.  Badmonkey 

This message was edited by badmonkey on 3-16-07 @ 8:32 PM

TheMojoPin

03-16-2007, 05:52 PM

badmonkey wrote: FMJeff wrote: I want them to be really, really aggresive, not only in words, but in action. *snip* I don't want them to be martyrs. I would love for them to accomplish what they need to do <strike>without destroying thier chances for relection, of course</strike>. That would be ideal. *snip*But at the very least, don't give you opposition what they want.  My brother-in-law died in Iraq. What you just said about the democrats pretty much sums up nicely how I feel about the military's mission in Iraq. Now can we stop all the screaming about the evil soldiers murdering Iraqi civilians and let our military kick ass the way they have been trained. Can we untie their hands from behind their backs and stop screaming about heavy handed tactics and "torture"? Can we let the Generals who have called for more troops have the troops they feel they need to complete the mission so that those that have sacrificed life and limb for this war do not have to die for nothing? These guys see the news when they come home and their main complaint is that what they see here on tv is not what they see in Iraq. They hear congressmen like Durbin call them Nazi's. They hear people saying their wasting their time and their lives. They hear that their friends have died in vain for a lost cause. This destroys their morale and sends them back into combat feeling like the American people do not support them. I understand that it's not that you don't support them, you just don't want them to be killed. You don't understand that they want to win this and we should let them. I want the troops to come home too, but I also want them to win. I don't think anybody in congress voted for a loss and I don't think they want to start now. If we pull out of this one before it's won, how many Iraqi's that supported us will be murdered for it? If the Democrats want to stay in the majority, the only solution is to free the soldiers to complete the mission and win the war. If they can do that, I will happily vote for them in the next election because they will have done it right where the Republicans have fucked it up.If you think the world doesn't respect us now, wait until we've pulled our military out of a fight with a bunch of mostly untrained guys dressed as civilians. Then when we get into our next thing with Iran and N. Korea, why should they worry about us and/or our military?  We won't let them fight anyway so nothing to worry about.  Badmonkey This message was edited by badmonkey on 3-16-07 @ 8:32 PM The troops did win.  They did their job...defeating the Iraqi military, very well.  The military's job isn't one of nation-building.  Their hands are only tied now by being stuck in a situation that's the result of little to no planning ahead of time.  Who are you wanting them to kick the ass of?  Unless we want our military to just start mowing down everyone they see and flattening towns, there's not much more they can do in terms of significant change short of training the Iraqi security forces.

badmonkey

03-16-2007, 06:29 PM

I'd like them to kick the asses of the people that are killing our soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and attempting to assassinate the members of the Iraqi govt.<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/14/iraq.main/index.html" target="_blank">This article</a> seems to show that the troop surge is at least stopping most of it.Hopefully they can continue.Here's a good article on <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5305713/site/newsweek/" target="_blank">General Petraeus</a>, who seems to have a clue what he's doing and hopefully can get this done.Badmonkey

Ritalin

03-16-2007, 07:01 PM

FMJeff wrote: I don't care if they were "complicit". That's harsh language anyway. I don't blame a single Democrat for voting for the war in a post 9/11 world. Really. I probably would have as well. I was mad, we all were mad. Afghanistan fell like a house of cards. There was no fight, no vengeance. But here we had Saddam, resistant, proud, middle finger to the world, yeah, I wanted to fight him too. Let's not kid ourselves that this was about WMD's. Americans wanted to fuck somebody up who could fight back a little. Saddam was ASKING for it. Wrong attitude to have at the WRONG point in history. You don't fuck with an angry country with an itchy trigger finger. He should've let us in, he should've been more transparent, he should've been more accomodating. For that, his country and his own life were FUBAR'd. Of course that's no legitmite reason to invade a country. I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that's what I think happened. And no, I don't blame any Democrat for feeling that way. War is inevitable sometimes when both sides refuse to back down. What we saw in Iraq was a scaled up version of what I see in Belmar every summer...two thick necked guidos posturing until one throws a fist. This country is a bully. It's the truth. We posture in every way one could posture. Best athletes, best technology, best medicine, best military..best best best best. It's our bravado that defines us. Bush has bravado. He is also a fool. The Democrats have displayed absolutely no bravado whatsoever. It is unamerican. It is spineless. It is calculated timidity, and it is weakness. This is not to say I like the Republican ideology better, by no means. I am a Democrat, after all. I believe in big government that does good. But if you're going to be left wing or right wing about anything, do it to the max. You have POWER now, Democrats, be powerful. Be mighty. Do what you need to do, what you were elected to do. If you fail, then you were supposed to fail. If you lose your jobs come next term, than that's what the American people wanted. But I think the American people respect leadership more than you think, and all this political two-stepping is doing nothing more than alienating.  wrong, and wrong. And right. It was about WMD, and the Bush administration obviously lied to us to make an excuse for war. I mean, it's fairly straightforward. The Bush administration lied.   Bravado does not define the American Mindset, such as it is. Bravado is false pride, insecure preening. Bravado defines Venezuela,  Cuba, Texas. It doesn't define the America I've grown up in, contributed to, and defended.<>However, you're right about one thing: Bush the Younger is all full of bravado. He fools no one.

TheMojoPin

03-16-2007, 07:04 PM

badmonkey wrote: I'd like them to kick the asses of the people that are killing our soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and attempting to assassinate the members of the Iraqi govt. Nobody's stopping them from taking those people out.  The problem is that they're fighting a totally different kind of war than our troops are.  Like I said, the only way our military could definitvely "win" this kind of conflict would be level and kill everyone and everything they see.  The military ultimately cannot win, ironically, a "war on terror."  The military is essentially a Band-Aid on a head wound at this point, unfortunately.

Gvac

03-16-2007, 07:19 PM

The sad truth is that it would be the biggest blunder in U.S. history to pull the troops out of Iraq before it's stabilized and we've definitively "won."   We can debate until the cows come home as to whether or not we should have gone to war in the first place, but what's the point?  We're there.  It's a shit storm.  It has to be quelled. Of course the Democrats screamed "We'll bring the troops home!" when it was election time.  It was the surest way to get votes.  Both parties would sell their souls to the devil to attain power.  Anyone who actually believes campaign promises is very naive indeed.  As I've always said, no matter what party they belong to, a politician's first order of business once they get elected is to pay back whoever helped put them there.  The big money contributors.  Yes, even Democrats take heaps of cash from billionaires and corporations.  I know most of you think only Republicans do, but it's just not so.   Both major parties are in bed with some truly hideous bedfellows.  Their second order of business is to get re-elected.  If you think for one second that they're actually thinking of the average citizen once they're in power you're hopelessly misguided.  They're just trying to figure out how to keep their cushy job.  If that means passing a few bills that the people will be happy about, so be it.  If it means vetoing a few that their wealthy friends and backers want them to, so be it.  It's not pessimism, it's just the way it is.

BLZBUBBA

03-16-2007, 08:17 PM

Consider this as a theory of why we went into Iraq.  We wanted to kill extremists.  With all of the WMD "talk" we went in knowing we'd be attracting extremists (terrorists or however you want to put it) and then we could kill them.  "Bring 'em on!"  Who said that?  And that Abu Grahib deal was sure to get them worked up to a fever pitch.  Sure that kinda thing happens but there were an awful lot of pictures. Then they attack and we kill more of them.  Of course the only problem is we'd be using our troops as a kind of bait. And it's not exactly a straight-up fight.  I've often felt that if we did know there were no WMDs and still went in...That would be a reason. It's not without precedent.  Armies have "exposed their middle" and then attacked from the flanks.  That's a sort of baiting tactic.  But if you want to fight them they have to have ammo themselves.  Say?  Didn't we leave ammo dumps unattended? "We're fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here."  Not saying that's the reason we invaded Iraq.  Just throwing it out there.  And definetly not throwing it out there as a justification for the mess.  WMDs and regime change were the selling points but maybe we went in with the sole intent of baiting terrorists/extremists.  And then killing them.  Former CIA experts on the region have said Osama wanted us over there.  I guess to kill more of us.  We in turn try to kill more of them. Our "leadership" couldn't have been surprised by terrorists flooding into Iraq.  And when I said we could have flooded the place with inspectors instead of invading I meant really really flood the place with inspectors.  Thousands.

FMJeff

03-16-2007, 08:32 PM

I am tired of this pulling out is the worst idea ever theory. We pulled out of Vietnam. We're still here. They're still there. And guess what...they're doing pretty damn well. It's pure American hubris to believe our army is the solution to Iraqi problems. We'll leave, it'll be really shitty for a while, eventually it will work itself out, one way or another. They are people too. They want to find balance in thier lives as much as we do. We are not the fathers of the world. It's just arrogance. It may not be a perfect balance, but it will be the best possible.As for other countries interpreting our pull out as weak, I'd like to portray what we've done as a juice head beating up a skinny dweeb and suddenly deciding to stop punching the dweeb in the face, walk away and focus on his own problems. I don't think there's a country in the world that will call the bully a pussy to his face and test his willingness to punch someone again.

BLZBUBBA

03-16-2007, 08:39 PM

And you're right Gvac.  That is the way  it is.  In order to get elected you got to have real money.  I'm talking about the kind of money that comes from the very uppercrust and business.  If they don't want someone in the job...that person has no chance.  Both major parties play that game. They're talking in the neighborhood of $1 billion could be spent by the two major candidates for president combined in '08.  That would almost double the amount in '04.  Almost nauseating. 

Fat_Sunny

03-16-2007, 08:41 PM

We Promised Them We Would Stay Until They Were Secure.  Many Iraqi's Relied On That Promise And Helped Us Out.  If We Pull Out, They Will Be Slaughtered.  A Person's Word And A Country's Word Has To Mean Something.  If We Betray Our Commitment Like We Did In Vietnam, The People Who Trusted Us Will Pay A Very Heavy Price.  (You Do Get Points, Though, For Using The Word Hubris.)

Yerdaddy

03-16-2007, 10:50 PM

FMJeff wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Well it seems we've finally achieved bi-partisanship on the Iraq question: it's the democrats' fault and they should be punished. And yet another mission accomplished! My question for those of you abandoning the Democratic party over this one proposal: if your support is that flimsy that it hinges on whether or not they sacrafice their newfound majority in Congress for the sake of a dangerous ploy to rest some small amount of power from the President why should they even bother to try to win your support anyway? You want them to be martyrs and you're willing to hand back the entire government to the Republicans if Dems don't win every battle one of them dreams up. And Europeans still ask me why Bush wins elections. Twice. I want them to be really, really aggresive, not only in words, but in action. I want them to come up with a response to "You're not supporting the troops" that doesnt' smell like retreat. Say what you will about Republicans, but they play the game better. They work the system to thier own advantage and get what THEY want done. Democrats need to learn to do the same. It is ok to use Republican tactics in this fucked up country if it means good is done. The ends do justify means. That is the rwality of the world we live in. I think all us moderate liberals want this too. But the Democratic pols still haven't figured it out. I think if Gore had shown some balls he might have won. I know if Kerry had shown some balls he would have won. If the Dems don't show balls in the next year and a half they will lose everything again. They're not doing it and it pisses me off too. I'm going to hammer them on this point too.But in terms of what they do legilsatively they're not as unified or as loyal as the Republicans. I think that's both a good and a bad thing. It's good because it keeps them from following their leader to whatever extreme that takes them. (It's being said often now by conservatives that the war was the idea of the neocons and not all conservatives. This is true, but virtually all  conservatives signed up and defended it with everthing they had. Therefore it's their war too.) If the republicans were more independent like the democrats in how they run their party there would have been more people like McCain and Hegel to challenge the President on how he conducted the war and we might not have lost. (Even before the war Republican staffers were telling me their bosses were scared that the administraton had no plan for securing the country but they weren't going to cross the party.) That's the way the Republican party operates. The Democrats don't. That's why the proposed budget cut and the timeline for pullout both failed - because neither one was likely to improve things and both of them risk making things worse. (The funding cut would have targetted Bush's surge only and not the troops that are already there. But do you really think the public is willing to read the legislation and see that the cuts were specific once every conservative in America starts screaming that the Dems abandoned the soldiers in the field?) So they didn't get all the Democrats on these bills and they didn't get the Republican crossovers they needed. But the bills were not great ideas to begin with. Also we need to keep in mind that THERE ARE NO GREAT IDEAS FOR FIXING IRAQ. There is nothing we can do at this point to win the war. It's lost. The only thing that can be done now is damage control. That's what the troops are doing now. Pulling them out takes away their ability to do damage control, not to win. And pulling the troops out is only giving them a break until they or their younger brothers or children  are sent back to the region to deal with the backlash from this war. Unless you

Bulldogcakes

03-17-2007, 03:24 AM

This just needed to be posted somewhere<img src="http://www.yobbo.co.nz/images/xxx_photos/bushsadbin.jpg" border="0" width="509" height="305" /> 

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 3-17-07 @ 7:24 AM

A.J.

03-17-2007, 09:32 AM

FMJeff wrote: I am tired of this pulling out is the worst idea ever theory. We pulled out of Vietnam. We're still here. They're still there. And guess what...they're doing pretty damn well. It's pure American hubris to believe our army is the solution to Iraqi problems. We'll leave, it'll be really shitty for a while, eventually it will work itself out, one way or another. They are people too. They want to find balance in thier lives as much as we do. We are not the fathers of the world. It's just arrogance. It may not be a perfect balance, but it will be the best possible. Vietnam is a little different because they were a homogenous society where as Iraq is made up of a Shia majority with Sunni and Kurdish minorities.  And because those three groups align themselves with outside forces, there are transnational interests at play.I've said it before and I'll say it again -- all we did by invading Iraq is make an inevitable situation happen sooner rather than later by taking out a tyrant who kept a powderkeg in check with his iron fisted rule.And again, a big thank you to Britain for fucking up in establishing a post-colonial state!

Stankfoot

03-17-2007, 09:50 AM

Fat_Sunny wrote: We Promised Them We Would Stay Until They Were Secure. Many Iraqi's Relied On That Promise And Helped Us Out. If We Pull Out, They Will Be Slaughtered. A Person's Word And A Country's Word Has To Mean Something. If We Betray Our Commitment Like We Did In Vietnam, The People Who Trusted Us Will Pay A Very Heavy Price. (You Do Get Points, Though, For Using The Word Hubris.)         We never promised to stay there forever, They have not kept up their half of             the bargain. They have to step up and take control of the situation. How many         years will it take to train them? Our government has been saying "they will be             ready soon" for three years .....

epo

03-23-2007, 10:24 AM

Well, the Democrats have done what they can and are putting conditions on Bush.  <a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23366600.htm">Link to story.</a>

King Imp

03-23-2007, 10:31 AM

epo wrote: Well, the Democrats have done what they can and are putting conditions on Bush.  <a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23366600.htm">Link to story.</a>   "Sept. 1, 2008" Imagine that, just in time to make themselves look really good before the Presidential vote. These people (all parties) are so fucking fake.

Fezticle98

03-23-2007, 12:55 PM

King Imp wrote: epo wrote: Well, the Democrats have done what they can and are putting conditions on Bush.  <a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23366600.htm">Link to story.</a>   "Sept. 1, 2008" Imagine that, just in time to make themselves look really good before the Presidential vote. These people (all parties) are so fucking fake.  The troops would begin to be withdrawn by the summer if progress toward benchmarks isn't made by the Iraqi government. Another withdrawl deadline is triggered in the fall if those benchmarks are not met. Unfortunately, the bill probably will not pass the Senate and would certainly be vetoed if it does. So, none of the things included in this bill will actually happen. Our troops will remain in Iraq indefinitely, refereeing a civil war. The Iraqi government is hapless and we cannot continue to hemmorage American lives and dollars to support their side in the civil war.Bush wants $93+ billion to fund the escalation but does not want any performance guidelines included with that funding.

HBox

03-27-2007, 01:40 PM

epo

03-27-2007, 03:30 PM

The Senate just voted on an amendment that would have removed the withdrawal timetable out of the Iraq War funding bill. It failed. So, as it stands now, it's still in there. Republicans could still put up a filibuster to stop final passage of the bill. And failing that Bush will absolutely veto it. But that's how it stands as of now.

I don't know what else the Democrats in Congress can do past this. Despite the pitfalls I think they've pushed the envelope as far as they can at this point. Now it's off to Bush for the probable veto. :wallbash:

Bulldogcakes

03-27-2007, 04:47 PM

50-48: SENATE BACKS TROOP WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070327/D8O4P0TO2.html)

AgnosticJihad

03-30-2007, 12:29 PM

So when you would attack them for whatever they do where's your fucking courage? Or better yet, where's your concearn for the country or the soldiers who are fighting it's wars? What's courageus about Republicans goose-stepping behind a party while it does everything it can to lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and by doing so guaranteeing a "war on terrorism" that will last at least a generation longer than it would have? I call that loyalty to a political party or an ideology above country. 

While I agree the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been run completely wrong, in all likelihood they would've turned to shit regardless of how they were run. We are occupying countries which at best contained segments of the population that were hostile to the US/West before we got there. While it possible to occupy countires and remake them in your image (just look at Germeny and Japan), it helps if you share some cultural similarities (as we did with Germany) or those being occupied have a healthy respect for your culture (as Japan did for the West). When occupying countires that are completely alien and are openly hostile to your culture (as many Muslim cultures are, particularly in the Middle East; the West has been shitting on this part of the world since the end of WW1, after all), it becomes nearly impossible.
The War on Terrorism is unwinnable. You can not get rid of people who want to destroy America because they feel the US/West has set up oppresive dictatorships in thier countries in order to exploit their natural resources, by invading thier countries and setting up new governments in order to exploit their natural resources. And I know someone is going to say something like "if we're there for oil, how come it's still expensive?". It isn't about cheap oil prices (the government doesn't control oil prices, and American oil companies simply aren't going to cut prices when they can sell it for more anyway), it's about controlling the oil supplies. We're attempting to set up pro-U.S. governments so we won't have to worry about anti-U.S. elements gaining control of the governments and boycotting trade with the West. It's why when we originally set up the first elections in Iraq, we dictated who could run for office and who could not, in order to keep certain elements out. It's the same reason why all the Dictators were originally set up in the first place.
Anyway, I'm getting a little far from what I originally wanted to say. The War on Terrorism will never end as long as we continue to give terrorists reasons to hate us, as the War on Terrorism does. But I guess I did basically say that already. Ah fuck it, I'm done. This is what I get for trying to sound intelligent after taking giant bong rips.

Yerdaddy

04-01-2007, 02:00 AM

While I agree the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been run completely wrong, in all likelihood they would've turned to shit regardless of how they were run. We are occupying countries which at best contained segments of the population that were hostile to the US/West before we got there. While it possible to occupy countires and remake them in your image (just look at Germeny and Japan), it helps if you share some cultural similarities (as we did with Germany) or those being occupied have a healthy respect for your culture (as Japan did for the West). When occupying countires that are completely alien and are openly hostile to your culture (as many Muslim cultures are, particularly in the Middle East; the West has been shitting on this part of the world since the end of WW1, after all), it becomes nearly impossible.

Yes, it's true that we didn't understand Iraq at the time of the invasion and that's hurt us alot there. But our failures in Iraq had little to do with the hostility of the Iraqis towards "The West." Iraq was one of the most secular, educated and developed countries in the Middle East prior to the Gulf War. Those conditions create a more pragmatic and less dogmatic culture. Polls of the attitudes of Iraqis carried on the Brookings Institute's website shows that the Iraqi people were initially receptive to the American occupation - they didn't like being occupied, but they wanted the U.S. to stay and keep its promises of reconstruction and democracy. That attitude faded over time as the benefits we promised failed to materialize and as the security situation for Iraqis deteriorated. Large numbers of the educated class living in exile around the world returned hopeful to Iraq and over the next months and years packed up and left again. Our refusal to secure the country and prevent looting and violence created a climate of anarchy that hasn't been restored in some parts of the country. During that state people looked to sources of authority and security and when the civil society didn't exist they turned religious institutions and tribal and militia groups. Iraqi society has essentially gone back in time over the last four years because the U.S. occupation destroyed so much of modern life in Iraq and failed to replace or restore it.

I've met dozens of Iraqis in the last few years and they aren't the hostile, backwards people you seem to be describing. They're modern rational people who can't figure out how or why America failed so miserably to do what it told them it was going to do for Iraq. (Most of them, still convinced of the almost mythical ability of the all-powerful America to do what it wants to do, have turned to conspiracy theories to understand what's happened. They assume the way things have worked out is what was planned all along. They use American liberals as sources for this. That is helping to create an anger that wasn't there before.) Trust me; Iraqis understand what's happening in Iraq much better than Americans do. They're angry at America for what's happened since the invasion. They weren't angry before the invasion.

The hostility comes from the groups who lost out in this endeavor of ours: mainly the Sunnis who had been running the country and were going to lose everything as soon as we invaded, and a handful of foreign terrorists determined to see us fail in Iraq. In other words, the same people we should have known would be hostile and had a plan for how to deal with them. But the administration was literally in denial about this painfully obvious fact and merely wished them away. It didn't work.

If you read the report from last week by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction the description of how the planners of the war based all planning for post-war period on their fantastical assumptions about "we'll be greeted with flowers", (the original reconstruction budget was set at $2.475 billion! That's what we spend in about 5 minutes in Iraq now.), you'll see that this was doomed from the start, but that it didn't have to be so. Some of the agencies - and individual military units - were extremely effective when they were allowed to work autonomously and had funds. Basically, the further away from the President and his circle of psychopaths a group was the more effective the reconstruction. Had the administration been less insane and had been capable of taking the advice of the Army War College, for example, (who produced a report in 2002 on what needed to be planned for in order to succeed in Iraq called Winning the Peace), we would have had a chance. The Iraqis were certainly willing to go along with us, and I'm sure that, had we followed the advice of the Army War College, Iraqis who eventually joined the insurgency would have helped us fight it instead. (In Jordan I met a couple of guys from Fallujah and Ramadi who told me exactly that.)

So don't buy into this Operation Blame the Iraqis and Leave. This thing wasn't doomed to failure by them. It was doomed to failure by us.

The War on Terrorism is unwinnable. You can not get rid of people who want to destroy America because they feel the US/West has set up oppresive dictatorships in thier countries in order to exploit their natural resources, by invading thier countries and setting up new governments in order to exploit their natural resources. And I know someone is going to say something like "if we're there for oil, how come it's still expensive?". It isn't about cheap oil prices (the government doesn't control oil prices, and American oil companies simply aren't going to cut prices when they can sell it for more anyway), it's about controlling the oil supplies. We're attempting to set up pro-U.S. governments so we won't have to worry about anti-U.S. elements gaining control of the governments and boycotting trade with the West. It's why when we originally set up the first elections in Iraq, we dictated who could run for office and who could not, in order to keep certain elements out. It's the same reason why all the Dictators were originally set up in the first place.
Anyway, I'm getting a little far from what I originally wanted to say. The War on Terrorism will never end as long as we continue to give terrorists reasons to hate us, as the War on Terrorism does. But I guess I did basically say that already. Ah fuck it, I'm done. This is what I get for trying to sound intelligent after taking giant bong rips.

Yeah, I need a bong hit too now.

Two things:

The oil companies didn't lobby for this war. When they knew it was coming the oil industry lobby groups hired the best analysts from the foreign policy community to produce reports predicting what would be the possible outcomes of the war and how it would affect the companies themselves. They then give these reports to the oil companies who sponsor them or sell them to the ones who don't for tens of thousands of dollars. The companies then use them to form strategies for dealing with potential outcomes. Meanwhile, other policy groups in Washington raise the money to buy these reports and then make them available to other analysts and activist organizations. I read these things prior to the war. What they said was basically that things possibly could go horribly wrong. One in particular pointed out that if the assumption in Washington at the time was true - that the administration had no plans for post-war Iraq - then this was probably going to be a bad thing for the industry as a whole. Mainly because of the potential for civil war in Iraq that could then spill over into the neighboring countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran threatening those countries' supplies.

I used to take those reports into lobby meetings and they were trusted by everyone. What I was told by some staffers was that "the oil companies are not lobbying us for this war." They weren't lobbying against it either. They were staying out of it, each one deciding their own strategies for how to make the best of whatever happened. But they weren't lobbying for it. Certainly there were some, like Halliburton, who were in a position to get the contracts to repair and run Iraq's infrastructure or to buy Iraq's oil. Halliburton has done well for itself to say the least, but the ones who hoped to buy the oil haven't done so well with Iraq pumping about as much oil as it was under sanctions.

So again, don't buy into this liberal clap-trap that everything that's gone on in Iraq is exactly what the administration and their oil cronies had planned all along. That's bullshit. This thing got out of thier control a long time ago. And their plans fell apart the day they pulled the statue of Saddam down and the looting started.

Second, about the first Iraqi elections, those were actually real elections. Sure, the administration had originally planned what you described: a series of caucuses of "local leaders" hand-picked by the CPA to vote on an interim government. However, those caucuses were opposed by that little Shiite Ayatollah Sistani in Najaf who was the most powerful religious leader in Iraq. He had had one of his aides go out and get him a textbook on democracy when he heard that's what the Americans were promising and he announced that, according to his book, these "caucuses" were not democracy, elections were democracy. He was holding out for elections. Bush said "no"; elections aren't possible at this time so it's got to be caucuses. Sistani said "fuck you. I want elections" and he told the Shiia to go out in the streets and demand elections. Two million of them hit the streets and Bush said "who the fuck is this guy?" He was the guy who had been telling the Shiia not to oppose the invasion or the occupation and to not respond to violence when the Sunnis were attacking Shiia shrines in attempts to provoke a violent conflict that would be more advantageous to them than elections. And, except for Sadr's followers, the Shiia had respected the wishes of Sistani and he was the most powerful man in Iraq at the time. So the Bush administration asked the UN representative at the time to go and meet with Sistani, (he has always refused to meet with U.S. officials), and convince him to accept the caucuses. He came back from the meeting and said, "He really has a democracy textbook." And the book said elections are democracy and the caucuses aren't. So, after months of trying to organize these caucuses while haggling with this reclusive old Ayatollah, the Ayatollah out-democracied the President of the United States.

It wasn't the administration forcing those elections down the throats of the Iraqis; it was the Iraqis shoving it down the throats of the administration. Again, I hated it when liberals used to piss and moan about how those elections were rigged because Bush supported them. That's total bullshit. Bush only supported them after he opposed them. He flip-flopped because of a Muslim cleric. And the elections were free and fair. Liberal pundits like Michael Moore, Chomsky and The Nation will tell you they weren't and they'll cite the meddling that the administration tried in order to get their guy elected, but those elections were free and fair by any international standard. And Bush's boy lost. Liberals simply want you to believe that anything that happens in Iraq is exactly as the Bush administration planned it, and they got what they wanted because they're devilishly clever! It's bullshit. They really are morons and things haven't gone their way and what's happened in Iraq is real life: complicated and crazy. And if you don't pay attention to it and accept the facts as they are, and you try to cheat and listen to outsiders with an agenda try to explain what's happening you won't know shit.

My point is: it's only liberal ideologues who have ever claimed that the elections were a sham and the oil companies are happy about the chaos in Iraq. (Oil companies are always happy - they're oil companies. They make money off high prices, low prices, high supply, low supply... they always make money. But they make more money from high supply and high demand. And high prices and low supplies scare them because it gives an incentive for investments in alternatives to oil which lowers demand. Why do you think they're all admitting global warming is real and trying to develop the alternatives first?) My advice is: change your sources. Just like Fox "News", they're not trustworthy.

RogerPodacter

04-01-2007, 11:57 AM

AgnosticJihad

04-01-2007, 05:00 PM

Yes, it's true that we didn't understand Iraq at the time of the invasion and that's hurt us alot there. But our failures in Iraq had little to do with the hostility of the Iraqis towards "The West." Iraq was one of the most secular, educated and developed countries in the Middle East prior to the Gulf War. Those conditions create a more pragmatic and less dogmatic culture. Polls of the attitudes of Iraqis carried on the Brookings Institute's website shows that the Iraqi people were initially receptive to the American occupation - they didn't like being occupied, but they wanted the U.S. to stay and keep its promises of reconstruction and democracy. That attitude faded over time as the benefits we promised failed to materialize and as the security situation for Iraqis deteriorated. Large numbers of the educated class living in exile around the world returned hopeful to Iraq and over the next months and years packed up and left again. Our refusal to secure the country and prevent looting and violence created a climate of anarchy that hasn't been restored in some parts of the country. During that state people looked to sources of authority and security and when the civil society didn't exist they turned religious institutions and tribal and militia groups. Iraqi society has essentially gone back in time over the last four years because the U.S. occupation destroyed so much of modern life in Iraq and failed to replace or restore it.

I've met dozens of Iraqis in the last few years and they aren't the hostile, backwards people you seem to be describing. They're modern rational people who can't figure out how or why America failed so miserably to do what it told them it was going to do for Iraq. (Most of them, still convinced of the almost mythical ability of the all-powerful America to do what it wants to do, have turned to conspiracy theories to understand what's happened. They assume the way things have worked out is what was planned all along. They use American liberals as sources for this. That is helping to create an anger that wasn't there before.) Trust me; Iraqis understand what's happening in Iraq much better than Americans do. They're angry at America for what's happened since the invasion. They weren't angry before the invasion.

The hostility comes from the groups who lost out in this endeavor of ours: mainly the Sunnis who had been running the country and were going to lose everything as soon as we invaded, and a handful of foreign terrorists determined to see us fail in Iraq. In other words, the same people we should have known would be hostile and had a plan for how to deal with them. But the administration was literally in denial about this painfully obvious fact and merely wished them away. It didn't work.

If you read the report from last week by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction the description of how the planners of the war based all planning for post-war period on their fantastical assumptions about "we'll be greeted with flowers", (the original reconstruction budget was set at $2.475 billion! That's what we spend in about 5 minutes in Iraq now.), you'll see that this was doomed from the start, but that it didn't have to be so. Some of the agencies - and individual military units - were extremely effective when they were allowed to work autonomously and had funds. Basically, the further away from the President and his circle of psychopaths a group was the more effective the reconstruction. Had the administration been less insane and had been capable of taking the advice of the Army War College, for example, (who produced a report in 2002 on what needed to be planned for in order to succeed in Iraq called Winning the Peace), we would have had a chance. The Iraqis were certainly willing to go along with us, and I'm sure that, had we followed the advice of the Army War College, Iraqis who eventually joined the insurgency would have helped us fight it instead. (In Jordan I met a couple of guys from Fallujah and Ramadi who told me exactly that.)

So don't buy into this Operation Blame the Iraqis and Leave. This thing wasn't doomed to failure by them. It was doomed to failure by us.

Yeah, I need a bong hit too now.

Two things:

The oil companies didn't lobby for this war. When they knew it was coming the oil industry lobby groups hired the best analysts from the foreign policy community to produce reports predicting what would be the possible outcomes of the war and how it would affect the companies themselves. They then give these reports to the oil companies who sponsor them or sell them to the ones who don't for tens of thousands of dollars. The companies then use them to form strategies for dealing with potential outcomes. Meanwhile, other policy groups in Washington raise the money to buy these reports and then make them available to other analysts and activist organizations. I read these things prior to the war. What they said was basically that things possibly could go horribly wrong. One in particular pointed out that if the assumption in Washington at the time was true - that the administration had no plans for post-war Iraq - then this was probably going to be a bad thing for the industry as a whole. Mainly because of the potential for civil war in Iraq that could then spill over into the neighboring countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran threatening those countries' supplies.

I used to take those reports into lobby meetings and they were trusted by everyone. What I was told by some staffers was that "the oil companies are not lobbying us for this war." They weren't lobbying against it either. They were staying out of it, each one deciding their own strategies for how to make the best of whatever happened. But they weren't lobbying for it. Certainly there were some, like Halliburton, who were in a position to get the contracts to repair and run Iraq's infrastructure or to buy Iraq's oil. Halliburton has done well for itself to say the least, but the ones who hoped to buy the oil haven't done so well with Iraq pumping about as much oil as it was under sanctions.

So again, don't buy into this liberal clap-trap that everything that's gone on in Iraq is exactly what the administration and their oil cronies had planned all along. That's bullshit. This thing got out of thier control a long time ago. And their plans fell apart the day they pulled the statue of Saddam down and the looting started.

Second, about the first Iraqi elections, those were actually real elections. Sure, the administration had originally planned what you described: a series of caucuses of "local leaders" hand-picked by the CPA to vote on an interim government. However, those caucuses were opposed by that little Shiite Ayatollah Sistani in Najaf who was the most powerful religious leader in Iraq. He had had one of his aides go out and get him a textbook on democracy when he heard that's what the Americans were promising and he announced that, according to his book, these "caucuses" were not democracy, elections were democracy. He was holding out for elections. Bush said "no"; elections aren't possible at this time so it's got to be caucuses. Sistani said "fuck you. I want elections" and he told the Shiia to go out in the streets and demand elections. Two million of them hit the streets and Bush said "who the fuck is this guy?" He was the guy who had been telling the Shiia not to oppose the invasion or the occupation and to not respond to violence when the Sunnis were attacking Shiia shrines in attempts to provoke a violent conflict that would be more advantageous to them than elections. And, except for Sadr's followers, the Shiia had respected the wishes of Sistani and he was the most powerful man in Iraq at the time. So the Bush administration asked the UN representative at the time to go and meet with Sistani, (he has always refused to meet with U.S. officials), and convince him to accept the caucuses. He came back from the meeting and said, "He really has a democracy textbook." And the book said elections are democracy and the caucuses aren't. So, after months of trying to organize these caucuses while haggling with this reclusive old Ayatollah, the Ayatollah out-democracied the President of the United States.

It wasn't the administration forcing those elections down the throats of the Iraqis; it was the Iraqis shoving it down the throats of the administration. Again, I hated it when liberals used to piss and moan about how those elections were rigged because Bush supported them. That's total bullshit. Bush only supported them after he opposed them. He flip-flopped because of a Muslim cleric. And the elections were free and fair. Liberal pundits like Michael Moore, Chomsky and The Nation will tell you they weren't and they'll cite the meddling that the administration tried in order to get their guy elected, but those elections were free and fair by any international standard. And Bush's boy lost. Liberals simply want you to believe that anything that happens in Iraq is exactly as the Bush administration planned it, and they got what they wanted because they're devilishly clever! It's bullshit. They really are morons and things haven't gone their way and what's happened in Iraq is real life: complicated and crazy. And if you don't pay attention to it and accept the facts as they are, and you try to cheat and listen to outsiders with an agenda try to explain what's happening you won't know shit.

My point is: it's only liberal ideologues who have ever claimed that the elections were a sham and the oil companies are happy about the chaos in Iraq. (Oil companies are always happy - they're oil companies. They make money off high prices, low prices, high supply, low supply... they always make money. But they make more money from high supply and high demand. And high prices and low supplies scare them because it gives an incentive for investments in alternatives to oil which lowers demand. Why do you think they're all admitting global warming is real and trying to develop the alternatives first?) My advice is: change your sources. Just like Fox "News", they're not trustworthy.

Well, first off, I meant to say that there are elements in Muslim cultures which are hostile to the West. My comment was to broad. My mistake.
As for success in Iraq, I am simply basing my views on historical observations. To my knowledge, the only countires where occupying forces where able to truly install democracy were Germany and Japan. It sure didn't work very well in the old European colonies (granted, establishing democracy was not all that important to the European empires). I'm sure there are a few examples aside from Germany and Japan, but they are surely a minority. The only one I'm familiar with is India, and even they had some srious problems maintaining democracy (Indira Ghandi anyone?). I simply seriously doubt we could've ever established democracy in Iraq, least one that would last.
Regarding my sources on the election, it was an article I read in a newspaper. The USA Today, if I remember correctly. I'll see if I can dig it up.

AgnosticJihad

04-01-2007, 05:01 PM

Yes, it's true that we didn't understand Iraq at the time of the invasion and that's hurt us alot there. But our failures in Iraq had little to do with the hostility of the Iraqis towards "The West." Iraq was one of the most secular, educated and developed countries in the Middle East prior to the Gulf War. Those conditions create a more pragmatic and less dogmatic culture. Polls of the attitudes of Iraqis carried on the Brookings Institute's website shows that the Iraqi people were initially receptive to the American occupation - they didn't like being occupied, but they wanted the U.S. to stay and keep its promises of reconstruction and democracy. That attitude faded over time as the benefits we promised failed to materialize and as the security situation for Iraqis deteriorated. Large numbers of the educated class living in exile around the world returned hopeful to Iraq and over the next months and years packed up and left again. Our refusal to secure the country and prevent looting and violence created a climate of anarchy that hasn't been restored in some parts of the country. During that state people looked to sources of authority and security and when the civil society didn't exist they turned religious institutions and tribal and militia groups. Iraqi society has essentially gone back in time over the last four years because the U.S. occupation destroyed so much of modern life in Iraq and failed to replace or restore it.

I've met dozens of Iraqis in the last few years and they aren't the hostile, backwards people you seem to be describing. They're modern rational people who can't figure out how or why America failed so miserably to do what it told them it was going to do for Iraq. (Most of them, still convinced of the almost mythical ability of the all-powerful America to do what it wants to do, have turned to conspiracy theories to understand what's happened. They assume the way things have worked out is what was planned all along. They use American liberals as sources for this. That is helping to create an anger that wasn't there before.) Trust me; Iraqis understand what's happening in Iraq much better than Americans do. They're angry at America for what's happened since the invasion. They weren't angry before the invasion.

The hostility comes from the groups who lost out in this endeavor of ours: mainly the Sunnis who had been running the country and were going to lose everything as soon as we invaded, and a handful of foreign terrorists determined to see us fail in Iraq. In other words, the same people we should have known would be hostile and had a plan for how to deal with them. But the administration was literally in denial about this painfully obvious fact and merely wished them away. It didn't work.

If you read the report from last week by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction the description of how the planners of the war based all planning for post-war period on their fantastical assumptions about "we'll be greeted with flowers", (the original reconstruction budget was set at $2.475 billion! That's what we spend in about 5 minutes in Iraq now.), you'll see that this was doomed from the start, but that it didn't have to be so. Some of the agencies - and individual military units - were extremely effective when they were allowed to work autonomously and had funds. Basically, the further away from the President and his circle of psychopaths a group was the more effective the reconstruction. Had the administration been less insane and had been capable of taking the advice of the Army War College, for example, (who produced a report in 2002 on what needed to be planned for in order to succeed in Iraq called Winning the Peace), we would have had a chance. The Iraqis were certainly willing to go along with us, and I'm sure that, had we followed the advice of the Army War College, Iraqis who eventually joined the insurgency would have helped us fight it instead. (In Jordan I met a couple of guys from Fallujah and Ramadi who told me exactly that.)

So don't buy into this Operation Blame the Iraqis and Leave. This thing wasn't doomed to failure by them. It was doomed to failure by us.

Yeah, I need a bong hit too now.

Two things:

The oil companies didn't lobby for this war. When they knew it was coming the oil industry lobby groups hired the best analysts from the foreign policy community to produce reports predicting what would be the possible outcomes of the war and how it would affect the companies themselves. They then give these reports to the oil companies who sponsor them or sell them to the ones who don't for tens of thousands of dollars. The companies then use them to form strategies for dealing with potential outcomes. Meanwhile, other policy groups in Washington raise the money to buy these reports and then make them available to other analysts and activist organizations. I read these things prior to the war. What they said was basically that things possibly could go horribly wrong. One in particular pointed out that if the assumption in Washington at the time was true - that the administration had no plans for post-war Iraq - then this was probably going to be a bad thing for the industry as a whole. Mainly because of the potential for civil war in Iraq that could then spill over into the neighboring countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran threatening those countries' supplies.

I used to take those reports into lobby meetings and they were trusted by everyone. What I was told by some staffers was that "the oil companies are not lobbying us for this war." They weren't lobbying against it either. They were staying out of it, each one deciding their own strategies for how to make the best of whatever happened. But they weren't lobbying for it. Certainly there were some, like Halliburton, who were in a position to get the contracts to repair and run Iraq's infrastructure or to buy Iraq's oil. Halliburton has done well for itself to say the least, but the ones who hoped to buy the oil haven't done so well with Iraq pumping about as much oil as it was under sanctions.

So again, don't buy into this liberal clap-trap that everything that's gone on in Iraq is exactly what the administration and their oil cronies had planned all along. That's bullshit. This thing got out of thier control a long time ago. And their plans fell apart the day they pulled the statue of Saddam down and the looting started.

Second, about the first Iraqi elections, those were actually real elections. Sure, the administration had originally planned what you described: a series of caucuses of "local leaders" hand-picked by the CPA to vote on an interim government. However, those caucuses were opposed by that little Shiite Ayatollah Sistani in Najaf who was the most powerful religious leader in Iraq. He had had one of his aides go out and get him a textbook on democracy when he heard that's what the Americans were promising and he announced that, according to his book, these "caucuses" were not democracy, elections were democracy. He was holding out for elections. Bush said "no"; elections aren't possible at this time so it's got to be caucuses. Sistani said "fuck you. I want elections" and he told the Shiia to go out in the streets and demand elections. Two million of them hit the streets and Bush said "who the fuck is this guy?" He was the guy who had been telling the Shiia not to oppose the invasion or the occupation and to not respond to violence when the Sunnis were attacking Shiia shrines in attempts to provoke a violent conflict that would be more advantageous to them than elections. And, except for Sadr's followers, the Shiia had respected the wishes of Sistani and he was the most powerful man in Iraq at the time. So the Bush administration asked the UN representative at the time to go and meet with Sistani, (he has always refused to meet with U.S. officials), and convince him to accept the caucuses. He came back from the meeting and said, "He really has a democracy textbook." And the book said elections are democracy and the caucuses aren't. So, after months of trying to organize these caucuses while haggling with this reclusive old Ayatollah, the Ayatollah out-democracied the President of the United States.

It wasn't the administration forcing those elections down the throats of the Iraqis; it was the Iraqis shoving it down the throats of the administration. Again, I hated it when liberals used to piss and moan about how those elections were rigged because Bush supported them. That's total bullshit. Bush only supported them after he opposed them. He flip-flopped because of a Muslim cleric. And the elections were free and fair. Liberal pundits like Michael Moore, Chomsky and The Nation will tell you they weren't and they'll cite the meddling that the administration tried in order to get their guy elected, but those elections were free and fair by any international standard. And Bush's boy lost. Liberals simply want you to believe that anything that happens in Iraq is exactly as the Bush administration planned it, and they got what they wanted because they're devilishly clever! It's bullshit. They really are morons and things haven't gone their way and what's happened in Iraq is real life: complicated and crazy. And if you don't pay attention to it and accept the facts as they are, and you try to cheat and listen to outsiders with an agenda try to explain what's happening you won't know shit.

My point is: it's only liberal ideologues who have ever claimed that the elections were a sham and the oil companies are happy about the chaos in Iraq. (Oil companies are always happy - they're oil companies. They make money off high prices, low prices, high supply, low supply... they always make money. But they make more money from high supply and high demand. And high prices and low supplies scare them because it gives an incentive for investments in alternatives to oil which lowers demand. Why do you think they're all admitting global warming is real and trying to develop the alternatives first?) My advice is: change your sources. Just like Fox "News", they're not trustworthy.

Well, first off, I meant to say that there are elements in Muslim cultures which are hostile to the West. My comment was to broad. My mistake.
As for success in Iraq, I am simply basing my views on historical observations. To my knowledge, the only countires where occupying forces where able to truly install democracy were Germany and Japan. It sure didn't work very well in the old European colonies (granted, establishing democracy was not all that important to the European empires). I'm sure there are a few examples aside from Germany and Japan, but they are surely a minority. The only one I'm familiar with is India, and even they had some serious problems maintaining democracy (Indira Ghandi anyone?). I simply seriously doubt we could've ever established democracy in Iraq, at least one that would last.
Regarding my sources on the election, it was an article I read in a newspaper. The USA Today, if I remember correctly. I'll see if I can dig it up on thier website.

oops. double post. sorry.

Yerdaddy

04-01-2007, 11:12 PM

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

The reason we went to war with Iraq is related to economics (and oil somewhat). Everyone knows it in other countries. Its a fact. Its filtered in the US media. Why has the above article NEVER been discussed on and US media outlets (Foxnews, CNN, MSNBC)?

OPEC is switching all oil sales away from the US dollar and using Euros instead. In 2000/2001 Sadam switched Iraq oil transactions away from the us dollar into euros. He signed his death warrant with that move and war was inevitable.

For those who dont know what this means (all these oil exporting countries moving away from the us dollar as the global standard for oil transactions), it means that the US economy would absolutely collapse, and we would enter a state similar or worse then the Great Depression.

These arent opinions or guesses, its exactly why we went to war and HAD to go to war; it is what is talked about in the rest of the world. G W is aware that the global oil supply may hit peak oil within the next couple years (maybe longer, but it is inevitable), and he acted accordingly. Love it or hate it, he is trying to keep the US in the "game" so to speak for all of us.

No it's not. That's been the lynchpin of elaborate conspiracy theories for a long time. As long as OPEC is dominated by Saudi Arabia and other U.S.-friendly gulf producers Iran and Venezuela and other hostile producers can't make it happen. So the rest of the theory falls apart at that point. That's why the mainstream media hasn't covered this guy's work. They aren't "in on it" as the writer wants to believe.

I have been curious about the source of this theory for a while. I hear it from European and and American liberal intellectuals (and even one or two conservatives) over the last couple years. Thanks for the link.

Yerdaddy

04-01-2007, 11:23 PM

Vietnam is a little different because they were a homogenous society where as Iraq is made up of a Shia majority with Sunni and Kurdish minorities.  And because those three groups align themselves with outside forces, there are transnational interests at play.I've said it before and I'll say it again -- all we did by invading Iraq is make an inevitable situation happen sooner rather than later by taking out a tyrant who kept a powderkeg in check with his iron fisted rule.And again, a big thank you to Britain for fucking up in establishing a post-colonial state!

If that’s true I have a few questions:

1. Why are you the first person I’ve heard say it? When I was attending every conference on Iraq prior to the war with some of the foremost experts on Iraq they warned that it was a possibility but one that was generally conditional on how we handled the aftermath of the war. The warnings were usually in the context of the fact that it was apparent that the administration had not planned for providing security and reconstruction despite the warnings from the military institutions like the Army War College. But nobody said it was inevitable.
2. Why did it take three years to reach the point where we are allowed to even call it a civil war? Why did the “powderkeg” slow-burn rather than blow when the opportunity arose?
3. Why did so many Americans support this in the first place if this was the sure outcome? Why would we wade into a situation where we were going to make the inevitable civil war happen only to guarantee that we would be blamed for it by everyone on the planet who doesn’t vote Republican?
4. What would happen if some outside force entered the U.S. and chased every cop and civil servant off the streets and out of their government offices, disbanded and disbursed our military with their weapons and left us in a state of anarchy? (If that isn’t an alley-oop for an 80s call-back I don’t know what is.) What if it happened to any Third World country with multiple distinct ethnic and religious groups?

I know Yugoslavia is a good example of a powderkeg that blew, as is the Congo and half of Africa. But here are some examples of some similar places to Iraq that didn’t:

Indonesia – probably the most diverse country in the world with 15,000 islands; tens of thousands of languages, the largest Muslim country in the world but with large minorities of Hindu, Christian and animist populations; a long history of brutally repressed independence and opposition movements in Aceh, West Papua, the Maluccas, and one successful in East Timor. And yet when the 32-year dictatorship of Soeharto fell the place held together and is in a slow transition to democracy.

Turkey – Shiia and Kurdish minorities, armed resistance and brutal repression of the Kurds, tension between secular and religious forces, dominance over the political system by military and a long succession of dictatorships interspersed with democratically elected governments without civil war.

A.J.

04-02-2007, 03:08 AM

If that’s true I have a few questions:

1. Why are you the first person I’ve heard say it? When I was attending every conference on Iraq prior to the war with some of the foremost experts on Iraq they warned that it was a possibility but one that was generally conditional on how we handled the aftermath of the war. The warnings were usually in the context of the fact that it was apparent that the administration had not planned for providing security and reconstruction despite the warnings from the military institutions like the Army War College. But nobody said it was inevitable.

I'm smart and can handle things.

Honestly, I don't know.

2. Why did it take three years to reach the point where we are allowed to even call it a civil war? Why did the “powderkeg” slow-burn rather than blow when the opportunity arose?

I think at first it was considered to be the activities of former regime elements that were inciting Sunnis to resist.

3. Why did so many Americans support this in the first place if this was the sure outcome? Why would we wade into a situation where we were going to make the inevitable civil war happen only to guarantee that we would be blamed for it by everyone on the planet who doesn’t vote Republican?

Like you said, because nobody spoke up about the possibility.

Indonesia – probably the most diverse country in the world with 15,000 islands; tens of thousands of languages, the largest Muslim country in the world but with large minorities of Hindu, Christian and animist populations; a long history of brutally repressed independence and opposition movements in Aceh, West Papua, the Maluccas, and one successful in East Timor. And yet when the 32-year dictatorship of Soeharto fell the place held together and is in a slow transition to democracy.

I think Indonesia is "Muslim light" mainly because of that diversity -- much to the chagrin of the Saudis. When I was there recently, I found that they aren't as hardcore in their faith as the Saudis (the Saudis are trying to open madrassas there to teach them the "right" version of Islam) and seem to be more tolerant and open-minded of others. They didn't pray 5 times a day and some women wore the hijab while others chose not to.

Turkey – Shiia and Kurdish minorities, armed resistance and brutal repression of the Kurds, tension between secular and religious forces, dominance over the political system by military and a long succession of dictatorships interspersed with democratically elected governments without civil war.

You've got me there. I don't know anything about Turkey -- except that their prisons scare me.

Now enough about this bullshit: how was Bali?

RogerPodacter

04-02-2007, 10:08 AM

No it's not. That's been the lynchpin of elaborate conspiracy theories for a long time. As long as OPEC is dominated by Saudi Arabia and other U.S.-friendly gulf producers Iran and Venezuela and other hostile producers can't make it happen. So the rest of the theory falls apart at that point. That's why the mainstream media hasn't covered this guy's work. They aren't "in on it" as the writer wants to believe.

I have been curious about the source of this theory for a while. I hear it from European and and American liberal intellectuals (and even one or two conservatives) over the last couple years. Thanks for the link.

Yeah i'm not really sure i believe it exactly. I came across this article a couple weks ago. It is interesting though and does make me think. Is it true then, that other OPEC countries have have been switching to the euro? And also, the end of the article the author adds to it as the war goes on, and seems to prove his original predictions. It does make me wonder since nobody ever covered this in the media. But it also makes sense when i read it. I'm so confused....

badmonkey

04-02-2007, 10:41 AM

You've got me there. I don't know anything about Turkey -- except that their prisons scare me.

The only thing I know about Turkey is that if you've got a date in Constantinople, she'll be waiting in Istanbul.

Badmonkey

Yerdaddy

04-03-2007, 03:21 AM

Yeah i'm not really sure i believe it exactly. I came across this article a couple weks ago. It is interesting though and does make me think. Is it true then, that other OPEC countries have have been switching to the euro? And also, the end of the article the author adds to it as the war goes on, and seems to prove his original predictions. It does make me wonder since nobody ever covered this in the media. But it also makes sense when i read it. I'm so confused....

Let me put it this way regarding your confusion: this guy’s work is based primarily that OPEC is switching (or WAS switching to the Euro). He built a large, coherent theory out of it, but with a false premise his conclusions are wrong. They sound good because I’m sure he’s an intelligent guy. There are lots of people just like him who are really smart and really wrong. Noam Chomsky comes to mind. Even Ann Coulter is an intelligent cunt. But they're still wrong. I’d categorize this guy as a conspiracy theorist and an intellectual attention whore. But the rule to stuff like this should always be: if a piece of writing is based on a faulty premise, stop reading. There are too many important ideas on too many important issues written by people who care whether they’re right or wrong.