the administration's fuck ups

[jetdog]

I'm honestly not trying to start some conservative vs. liberal thread here, you have to admit that this administration has been saturated with fuck ups,
so what fuck ups come to you're mind? what congressional fuck ups come to mind?
Maybe the best reply would be short and linked to a relevant news article.

here's one (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/10/MNGHOBN6LR1.DTL)

[Fat_Sunny]

Fat's Not Sure Your Choice Was An Actual Screw Up Or Not.

This Was:

Thinking Harriet Myers Was In Any Way Qualified For The Supreme Court!

[lleeder]

Fat_Sunny has a heat seeking response for any political thread.

[Gvac]

I thought this was gonna be a thread where we could rip mikeyboy and JustJon.

Maybe I'll just start one.

[jetdog]

I thought this was gonna be a thread where we could rip mikeyboy and JustJon.

Maybe I'll just start one.
Haven't you caused enough pain!? :tongue:

[Yerdaddy]

Ummmm... uhhhhh... errrrrr... Dammit I'm stumped! They're awesome! Best president ever? Only possible improvement over Bush as president... Imus! Just the thought of the man and his gravel-throated powers of goodness and benevolence makes every other problem seem to just melt away by comparison. He's like a whole case of NyQuil - the more you have of him the more his power of healing intoxication just feels right. Maybe Bush could be Imus's VP in 2008? Is that possible? Golly I hope!

[TheMojoPin]

JUSTJON READS EVERYONE'S PM'S NAKED!

Oh....OH....er...ah...sorry.

[A.J.]

The complete lack of attention paid to the Mod Quote Gap.

[AgnosticJihad]

My fav Bush fuckups have always been the stupid things he says.

Like when he called people from Greece "Greecians".
Or when asked what his favorite book as a child was, and he cites a children's book written when he was in college.
Or when he thought Putin was PM of Canada.
"Rarely is the question asked "Is our children learnin'?""
"I will have a foreign handed foreign policy"
"More and more of our imports come from overseas."
"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream"
"I know how hard it is to put food on your family"

What an dumb fucking jackoff! Considering public speaking is the only real skill a politician needs, how the fuck did this dude ever get elected to any office?

[Dan 'Hampton]

My fav Bush fuckups have always been the stupid things he says.

Like when he called people from Greece "Greecians".
Or when asked what his favorite book as a child was, and he cites a children's book written when he was in college.
Or when he thought Putin was PM of Canada.
"Rarely is the question asked "Is our children learnin'?""
"I will have a foreign handed foreign policy"
"More and more of our imports come from overseas."
"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream"
"I know how hard it is to put food on your family"

What an dumb fucking jackoff! Considering public speaking is the only real skill a politician needs, how the fuck did this dude ever get elected to any office?

Remember the other choices? Eeck. forget all that voter fraud shit, the Dems problem was their lack of having a reasonable candidate.

[furie]

I'm honestly not trying to start some conservative vs. liberal thread here, you have to admit that this administration has been saturated with fuck ups,
so what fuck ups come to you're mind? what congressional fuck ups come to mind?
Maybe the best reply would be short and linked to a relevant news article.

here's one (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/10/MNGHOBN6LR1.DTL)

i'm sorry, how is this a fuck up?
social security is broken and he offered a solution that some like and some hate.

[Gvac]

I just wanted to reiterate what I've said before: the time has come for us to stop electing billionaires, no matter what side of the aisle they're from.

I also believe anyone actively seeking power shouldn't be given it, but I don't know if we can stop the political machine in this country. I'll be voting for the most underfunded 3rd party candidate I can find in all elections for the foreseeable future.

[SatCam]

"More and more of our imports come from overseas."

that makes sense....................

[Recyclerz]

I just wanted to reiterate what I've said before: the time has come for us to stop electing billionaires, no matter what side of the aisle they're from.
...


I have to partially disagree with GVAC on this one. I think it depends on how they got to be billionaires and what they've done since. If you made it through your own smarts and hard work and remained a decent human being (give or take 5%) I think you might be a great leader. Three examples I could get behind are Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Bloomberg. Also if Corzine (although not a billionaire) gets better, pulls off his turn-around plan for NJ and starts wearing a seat belt I'd throw him onto the list of rich fucks I could happily support. I think it is the idiot sons of rich parents that we have to watch out for.

Back on topic: Here's a current issue that is being mis-reported in the press as the Dems going after AG Gonzales for firing political appointees (US Attorneys). The real crime/ fuck-up is using federal prosecutorial power as a political weapon.

Here's one example (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/opinion/16mon4.html?hp)

Think about it. A whole army of Nifongs, subservient to Karl Rove (or someone like him), prosecuting (or excusing) people when it suits the political advantage of the party of the current occupant of the White House.

[Midkiff]

existing

[spoon]

Funny how the #3 in charge went to that bullshit law school too. I couldn't believe it that it's a prereq for being in the Bush law staff. In fact, over 100 of the top lawyers got their degrees at the evangelist's law school, yet she decided to chose a real lawyer from a real school for her personal lawyer. I love it, and hope she goes to jail. She should be forced to use on of her own hires from that bullshit school.

[Fat_Sunny]

Funny how the #3 in charge went to that bullshit law school too. I couldn't believe it that it's a prereq for being in the Bush law staff. In fact, over 100 of the top lawyers got their degrees at the evangelist's law school, yet she decided to chose a real lawyer from a real school for her personal lawyer. I love it, and hope she goes to jail. She should be forced to use on of her own hires from that bullshit school.

Is Something Missing Here? What/Who Are You Talking About?

[EliSnow]

There are a number of fuck-ups surrounding Iraq, but the "Mission Accomplished" debacle is a big one. The administration, military, and anyone with an good knowledge of history had to know at the time that Bush went to that ship, that the easiest part of the Iraq mission was invading and taking over the country.

The hardest part of the mission is what has come afterwards - repairing the country, setting up a friendly government, rebuilding the military, all the while taking on subversives who would use guerrilla warfare tactics to obstruct and hamper the efforts of the U.S. and its allies. The fact that there would be such suberversives was guaranteed for a number of reasons, the least of which was the fact that you have three different groups of people who don't really get along that well. The huge danger in this mission is that if the US failed, we would likely create an opportunity for Iraq to become an even bigger danger to the US and its allies than it has ever been.

Given this, it should have been obvious to the administration and the military that this mission would be a long and hard one. And to accomplish it, the administration needed to keep popular opinion behind him until the mission was truly accomplished. That means preparing them for this type of mission and not giving the impression it would be quick and easy.

By going to that aircraft carrier, wearing a frickin' pilot suit and having a banner saying "Mission Accomplished" the administration gave the very opposite impression to the american people. Since then, I've heard from a number of people who were for the invasion now saying "why are we still over there? Let's get out."

I admit that Bush did make some statements about how this mission would take awhile, etc., but it's clear that this message really wasn't considered by its audience fully. And it's not the only fuck-up to this war (besides going in the first place), but it's the first one I think of.

[Dudeman]

washingtonpost.com
Tenet's Tell-All Is a Slam Dunk to Provoke Invasion's Architects

By Al Kamen
Monday, April 16, 2007; A15

The drums have begun sounding for the long-awaited book by former CIA director George Tenet, in which he gives his take on pre-9/11 days and on Saddam's huge cache of weapons of mass destruction.

And the drums are saying that Tenet is not going to get too many Christmas cards from Vice President Cheney's office after they read "At the Center of the Storm." Folks from down the river at the Pentagon, including former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz-- a guy who's already going through a rough patch -- and former defense undersecretary Douglas Feith, might also get some heartburn.

Former secretary of state Colin Powell comes out fine. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was President Bush's key adviser in engineering the Iraq invasion, doesn't come out so fine. Not fine at all.

The White House definitely won't be overjoyed, we're hearing. Tenet even takes some shots at himself and for the first time explains his astute assurance that "it's a slam-dunk case" when Bush asked him how solid the WMD evidence was.

Tenet has never really explained his views on that comment. The 500-page book -- or more likely his "60 Minutes" interview on April 29, the day before the book goes on sale -- will be the first time he goes over that.

Tenet, who ran the CIA from July 1997 to July 2004, did the first of two days of taping last week at Georgetown University, where he's teaching.

[Midkiff]

[QUOTE=Dudeman;1276160]washingtonpost.com
Tenet's Tell-All Is a Slam Dunk to Provoke Invasion's Architects

By Al Kamen
Monday, April 16, 2007; A15

Tenet has never really explained his views on that comment. The 500-page book -- or more likely his "60 Minutes" interview on April 29, the day before the book goes on sale -- will be the first time he goes over that.
QUOTE]

I can't wait! I'm buying that book!

[patsopinion]

"mommy what is president Bush buring"
"thats your future son"

[AgnosticJihad]

Remember the other choices? Eeck. forget all that voter fraud shit, the Dems problem was their lack of having a reasonable candidate.

well, that didn't stop the Republicans from winning, now did it?

[Dudeman]

[/COLOR]

well, that didn't stop the Republicans from winning, now did it?

they don't mind voting for incompetent candidates, as long as they have good campaign slogans (flip flop, flip flop)

[high fly]

I'm honestly not trying to start some conservative vs. liberal thread here, you have to admit that this administration has been saturated with fuck ups,
so what fuck ups come to you're mind? what congressional fuck ups come to mind?
Maybe the best reply would be short and linked to a relevant news article.

here's one (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/10/MNGHOBN6LR1.DTL)

Here's 5 Bush administration fuck-ups:


* J. Steven Griles

* Claude Allen,

* David H. Safavian

* Lester Crawford,

* "Scooter" Libby,

They are all administration figures who have been found guilty of crimes. I expect that number to grow.
The Clinton administration had far less convicted criminals in it who committed crimes while in office.

[AgnosticJihad]

Here's 5 Bush administration fuck-ups:


* J. Steven Griles

* Claude Allen,

* David H. Safavian

* Lester Crawford,

* "Scooter" Libby,

They are all administration figures who have been found guilty of crimes. I expect that number to grow.
The Clinton administration had far less convicted criminals in it who committed crimes while in office.

What's the point in convicting these people or any more of them? That cunt Bush will just pardon them before he leaves office anyway. They could be convicted after he's gone, but has anyone else noticed that never seems to happen?

[Midkiff]

What's the point in convicting these people or any more of them? That cunt Bush will just pardon them before he leaves office anyway. They could be convicted after he's gone, but has anyone else noticed that never seems to happen?

Unfortunately, that's so fucking true.

[AgnosticJihad]

kind of makes one think these people are only even charged with crimes in the first place for political reasons. oh wait.....

[BLZBUBBA]

Referred to Africa as a country?

[Dudeman]

http://www.apostropher.com/blog/img/Bush-Mission-Accomplished.jpg
"I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message: that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound -- with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world."

[Jujubees2]

Speaking of flip-flops, guess who, in 1999, called for a timetable for withdrawal from Kosovo?

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/01/bush-timetable-2/

Yep, good old G.W.

[Dudeman]

[SIZE="2"]Speaking of flip-flops

i enjoy how the W now talks about americans using too much energy like he invented the idea. here is a quote from a presidential briefing in the white house in 2001:

"Question: Is one of the problems with this, and the entire energy field, American lifestyles? Does the President believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the President believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's a big no. The President believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one. And we have a bounty of resources in this country."


Republicans and conservatives are always late to join the reality (see environment, civil rights, etc.)

[Fat_Sunny]

i enjoy how the W now talks about americans using too much energy like he invented the idea. here is a quote from a presidential briefing in the white house in 2001:

"Question: Is one of the problems with this, and the entire energy field, American lifestyles? Does the President believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the President believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's a big no. The President believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one. And we have a bounty of resources in this country."


Republicans and conservatives are always late to join the reality (see environment, civil rights, etc.)

Just So You Know, More Republican Senators Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Legislation Than Democrats. LBJ Would Not Have Gotten Any Of That Through Had It Not Been For Everett Dirksen And The Republicans.

[EliSnow]

Just So You Know, More Republican Senators Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Legislation Than Democrats. LBJ Would Not Have Gotten Any Of That Through Had It Not Been For Everett Dirksen And The Republicans.

At that point, wasn't the South still primarily Democrats? Or had the switch happened? If it was before the switch, that would explain the voting.

[Fat_Sunny]

At that point, wasn't the South still primarily Democrats? Or had the switch happened? If it was before the switch, that would explain the voting.

It Was Before The Switch. The South Was A Solid Block Of Racist Democrat Senators.

The Legislation Turned Out To Be Democrats From The North Were For It, Democrats From The South Were Against It, And The Majority Of Republicans Were For It.

Just To Give Credit Where It Is Due.

Fat's Hero (Goldwater) Voted Against It, But Later Said It Was A Mistake To Do So. Fat Agrees With That!

[Dudeman]

Just So You Know, More Republican Senators Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Legislation Than Democrats. LBJ Would Not Have Gotten Any Of That Through Had It Not Been For Everett Dirksen And The Republicans.

fine, just make it conservatives vs. progressives/liberals, and leav out the current party affiliations. your point is a technicality, not an argument that changes the basis of what i was getting at.

[AgnosticJihad]

Just So You Know, More Republican Senators Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Legislation Than Democrats. LBJ Would Not Have Gotten Any Of That Through Had It Not Been For Everett Dirksen And The Republicans.

While this is true, it doesn't excuse the Republicans for embracing the Segregationists with open arms when they were driven out of the Democratic party, and continuing to support these types to this day (or at least until Thurmond finally died; I'm not sure if there are still segregationist politicians in the South, but I wouldn't be surprised).

[Fat_Sunny]

While this is true, it doesn't excuse the Republicans for embracing the Segregationists with open arms when they were driven out of the Democratic party, and continuing to support these types to this day (or at least until Thurmond finally died; I'm not sure if there are still segregationist politicians in the South, but I wouldn't be surprised).

Dude, Fat's Thrilled You're Concerned About Segregation, But He'd Feel A Little Better About Your View Of People's Rights, If Your Avatar Did Not Show A Woman With Her Face Held Down With A Foot. WTF?

[AgnosticJihad]

Dude, Fat's Thrilled You're Concerned About Segregation, But He'd Feel A Little Better About Your View Of People's Rights, If Your Avatar Did Not Show A Woman With Her Face Held Down With A Foot. WTF?

Oh c'mon. You're not honestly telling me women are people, are you?

[A.J.]

Republicans and conservatives are always late to join the reality (see environment, civil rights, etc.)

Yeah what a legacy of failed leadership.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/t/3/t3b/Tom'smediafolder/media%20SpCom%20597c%20spring%202002/Lincoln%20by%20Gardner%20August%201863.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/President_Theodore_Roosevelt%2C_1904.jpg

[Dudeman]

Yeah what a legacy of failed leadership.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/t/3/t3b/Tom'smediafolder/media%20SpCom%20597c%20spring%202002/Lincoln%20by%20Gardner%20August%201863.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/President_Theodore_Roosevelt%2C_1904.jpg

1) i already said use conservative and progressive instead of republican and democrat.

2) go read a history textbook! the parties have changed their political philosphies since the 1860's and 1910's.

TR himself represents this fact. TR left the republican party because he was more progressive than the republicans, which became more conservative. and thus the bull moose party.

by haning onto lincoln and TR as republicans totally side steps the real point of what we are talking about in this thread- but yes i conceed lincoln was a republican and strom thurmond used to be democrat.

[Fat_Sunny]

Roosevelt Should Have Parted His Hair In The Middle For That Official Photo!

[Dudeman]

"I regret these mistakes," said Goodling, a graduate of conservative Christian leader Pat Robertson's Regent University who served as a senior counsel to Gonzales and the department's White House liaison. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070523/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_dc)

Asked if she believed she had done anything illegal, Goodling told the lawmakers: "I know I crossed the line."

these douchebags are so much more corrupt than blowjob clinton- fucking up the judical branch, the military, foreign policy, women's health, the environment....

[ralphbxny]

Speaking of flip-flops, guess who, in 1999, called for a timetable for withdrawal from Kosovo?

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/01/bush-timetable-2/

Yep, good old G.W.

He wasnt making any money on that war!

[Dan 'Hampton]

Republicans and conservatives are always late to join the reality (see environment, civil rights, etc.)

The EPA began operation on December 2, 1970, when it was established by guess which shamed president. You got to realize that the drivel you are getting from the Left is the same as the drivel from the Right. Broaden your horizons and think for yourself

[Dan 'Hampton]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/President_Theodore_Roosevelt%2C_1904.jpg

Check out that rocking tie TR has got. Where can I get one of those.

[Fat_Sunny]

Check out that rocking tie TR has got. Where can I get one of those.

Wow! F_S Did Not Notice That The First Time The Pic Was Posted. Who Knew They Had LSD-Using Tie Designers in 1905!

[Dudeman]

The EPA began operation on December 2, 1970, when it was established by guess which shamed president. You got to realize that the drivel you are getting from the Left is the same as the drivel from the Right. Broaden your horizons and think for yourself

while you are right, i'm speaking of current times- are you telling me the current (the past few elections) right has been leading environmentalism? with someone like gail norton able to become sec of the interior, i hope that isnt what you're saying.

[high fly]

Administration fuck-ups, damn, there have been so many....

Let's see,

* They started out being rolled by the communist Chinese who forced Bush to his knees and blubber an apology for a Chinese fighter jet ramming an American recon plane,

* They wouldn't let the commanders on the ground have the troops and equipment needed to cut off the retreat of bin Laden, al Qaeda leaders and the Taliban from Afghanistan,

* They managed to fail to keep their word on keeping the budget balanced and delivered over $2 trillion of red ink, - that's over $2 trillion in loans whose interest is rising faster than the federal government's income,

* They appointed lobbyists for polluters to positions in the EPA,

* They gave us 3 new record-sized deficits,

* They twisted the intel on Iraq and over 3,300 Americans have had to pay for it, so far

* They bogged down the bulk of our combat power in a country that was no threat to us, preventing a response when and where a REAL threat arises

* They threw away international support and sympathy after 9/11

* Their lies have made anything they say unbelievable

* They divided a united nation after 9/11

* They blew Katrina relief

* They slashed most of the troops from the invasion plan for Iraq

* They refused to believe predictions of an insurgency in Iraq

[high fly]

....* They have put us on the list of nations who torture prisoners as a matter of national policy,

* When laws like the 4th Ammendment got in their way, they got a wet-behind-the-ears kid fresh out of law school to give a legal opinion that said they could ignore the law,

* They threw away a projected $2 trillion in surpluses with little or nothing to show for it,

* In Afghanistan, when the enemy fled one country over to the EAST,
the Texas Einstein figured the thing to do would be to invade 3 countries over to the WEST,

* They pursued a counterterrorism strategy that couldn't have been planned better by the terrorists themselves - terrorist recruiting has skyrocketed and al Qaeda is more active in the 6 years since 9/11 than in the 6 years previous,

* In Iraq, they have provided the terrorists with a California-sized battle lab, staffed with live American targets in their backyard on terrain disadvantageous to the U.S.; plus they have thoughtfully provided training to the terrorist spies which infest the Iraqi "security" forces with training on our capabilities and limitations, as well as the theory and thinking behind the way we go to war,

* While they dithered, the NoKos got nukes,

* In Richard Perle and Doug Feith, they hired 2 men who had been previously fired for unauthorized giving a foreign country classified U.S. intelligence, and put both of them in jobs where they handled highly classified intelligence,

* They modified 8 ships for the Coast Guard, all 8 of which can't float any more and will be scrapped,

* They installed a multibillion dollar missile defense system that failed all of it's tests,

* And the biggie - THEY IGNORED SCORES OF WARNINGS THAT AL QAEDA WAS GOING TO HIT US WITH A MASSIVE ATTACK THAT WOULD "SHAKE THE WORLD" AND CAUSE MASSIVE CASUALTIES

[foodcourtdruide]

Fat's Not Sure Your Choice Was An Actual Screw Up Or Not.

This Was:

Thinking Harriet Myers Was In Any Way Qualified For The Supreme Court!

I agree with you Fat, but I don't think the reason she was selected was because of her qualifications, it was because of her allegiance to Bush. Nonetheless, complete screw up.

I think going to war with Iraq, knowing (or not knowing) the following:
1. Destabilizing Hussein would cause a civil war between the Shiite majority and Sunni minority.
2. The invasion of Iraq could possibly increase the power of Iran.
3. Hundreds of thousands of civlians would be caught in the crossfire.
4. Thousands of U.S. soldiers would die.
5. This is the actual SCREW UP. Not defining victory and not having an exit strategy.

[Dudeman]

Administration fuck-ups, damn, there have been so many....

Let's see,

* They started out being rolled by the communist Chinese who forced Bush to his knees and blubber an apology for a Chinese fighter jet ramming an American recon plane,

* They wouldn't let the commanders on the ground have the troops and equipment needed to cut off the retreat of bin Laden, al Qaeda leaders and the Taliban from Afghanistan,

* They managed to fail to keep their word on keeping the budget balanced and delivered over $2 trillion of red ink, - that's over $2 trillion in loans whose interest is rising faster than the federal government's income,

* They appointed lobbyists for polluters to positions in the EPA,

* They gave us 3 new record-sized deficits,

* They twisted the intel on Iraq and over 3,300 Americans have had to pay for it, so far

* They bogged down the bulk of our combat power in a country that was no threat to us, preventing a response when and where a REAL threat arises

* They threw away international support and sympathy after 9/11

* Their lies have made anything they say unbelievable

* They divided a united nation after 9/11

* They blew Katrina relief

* They slashed most of the troops from the invasion plan for Iraq

* They refused to believe predictions of an insurgency in Iraq

yeah, but did W lie about getting a blowjob???

[epo]

I like to think about the things Bush has done right:


Attack Afghanistan.
Ban Effedra.


That's all I've got. It's been 6.5 very long years for this progressive.

[high fly]

yeah, but did W lie about getting a blowjob???

Right, Dudeman.
When we look at my complete list (so far):


* They started out being rolled by the communist Chinese who forced Bush to his knees and blubber an apology for a Chinese fighter jet ramming an American recon plane,

* They wouldn't let the commanders on the ground have the troops and equipment needed to cut off the retreat of bin Laden, al Qaeda leaders and the Taliban from Afghanistan,

* They managed to fail to keep their word on keeping the budget balanced and delivered over $2 trillion of red ink, - that's over $2 trillion in loans whose interest is rising faster than the federal government's income,

* They appointed lobbyists for polluters to positions in the EPA,

* They gave us 3 new record-sized deficits,

* They twisted the intel on Iraq and over 3,300 Americans have had to pay for it, so far

* They bogged down the bulk of our combat power in a country that was no threat to us, preventing a response when and where a REAL threat arises

* They threw away international support and sympathy after 9/11

* Their lies have made anything they say unbelievable

* They divided a united nation after 9/11

* They blew Katrina relief

* They slashed most of the troops from the invasion plan for Iraq

* They refused to believe predictions of an insurgency in Iraq

* They have put us on the list of nations who torture prisoners as a matter of national policy,

* When laws like the 4th Ammendment got in their way, they got a wet-behind-the-ears kid fresh out of law school to give a legal opinion that said they could ignore the law,

* They threw away a projected $2 trillion in surpluses with little or nothing to show for it,

* In Afghanistan, when the enemy fled one country over to the EAST,
the Texas Einstein figured the thing to do would be to invade 3 countries over to the WEST,

* They pursued a counterterrorism strategy that couldn't have been planned better by the terrorists themselves - terrorist recruiting has skyrocketed and al Qaeda is more active in the 6 years since 9/11 than in the 6 years previous,

* In Iraq, they have provided the terrorists with a California-sized battle lab, staffed with live American targets in their backyard on terrain disadvantageous to the U.S.; plus they have thoughtfully provided training to the terrorist spies which infest the Iraqi "security" forces with training on our capabilities and limitations, as well as the theory and thinking behind the way we go to war,

* While they dithered, the NoKos got nukes,

* In Richard Perle and Doug Feith, they hired 2 men who had been previously fired for unauthorized giving a foreign country classified U.S. intelligence, and put both of them in jobs where they handled highly classified intelligence,

* They modified 8 ships for the Coast Guard, all 8 of which can't float any more and will be scrapped,

* They installed a multibillion dollar missile defense system that failed all of it's tests,

* And the biggie - THEY IGNORED SCORES OF WARNINGS THAT AL QAEDA WAS GOING TO HIT US WITH A MASSIVE ATTACK THAT WOULD "SHAKE THE WORLD" AND CAUSE MASSIVE CASUALTIES



and add-em all up, it's almost as bad as lying about a beejay.....

[Bulldogcakes]

Party Unfaithful (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/04/070604fa_fact_goldberg?printable=true)

]Newt Gingrich is one of those who fear that Republicans have been branded with the label of incompetence. He says that the Bush Administration has become a Republican version of the Jimmy Carter Presidency, when nothing seemed to go right. “It’s just gotten steadily worse,” he said. “There was some point during the Iranian hostage crisis, the gasoline rationing, the malaise speech, the sweater, the rabbit”—Gingrich was referring to Carter’s suggestion that Americans wear sweaters rather than turn up their thermostats, and to the “attack” on Carter by what cartoonists quickly portrayed as a “killer rabbit” during a fishing trip—“that there was a morning where the average American went, ‘You know, this really worries me.’[/B] ” He added, “You hire Presidents, at a minimum, to run the country well enough that you don’t have to think about it, and, at a maximum, to draw the country together to meet great challenges you can’t avoid thinking about.” Gingrich continued, “When you have the collapse of the Republican Party, you have an immediate turn toward the Democrats, not because the Democrats are offering anything better, but on a ‘not them’ basis. And if you end up in a 2008 campaign between ‘them’ and ‘not them,’ ‘not them’ is going to win.”



Not since Watergate, Gingrich said, has the Republican Party been in such desperate shape. “Let me be clear: twenty-eight-per-cent approval of the President, losing every closely contested Senate seat except one, every one that involved an incumbent—that’s a collapse. I mean, look at the Northeast. You can’t be a governing national party and write off entire regions.” For this disarray he blames not only Iraq and Hurricane Katrina but also Karl Rove’s “maniacally dumb” strategy in 2004, which left Bush with no political capital. “All he proved was that the anti-Kerry vote was bigger than the anti-Bush vote,” Gingrich said. He continued, “The Bush people deliberately could not bring themselves to wage a campaign of choice”—of ideology, of suggesting that Kerry was “to the left of Ted Kennedy”—and chose instead to attack Kerry’s war record.

The only way to keep the White House in G.O.P. hands, Gingrich said, would be to nominate someone who, in essence, runs against Bush, in the style of Nicolas Sarkozy, the center-right cabinet minister who just won the French Presidency by making his own President, Jacques Chirac, his virtual opponent. Sarkozy is a transforming figure in French politics, Gingrich said, and he suggested that the only Republican who shared Sarkozy’s “transformative” approach to governing was, at that moment, eating a bowl of oatmeal at the McLean Family Restaurant.

“What’s fascinating about Sarkozy is that you have an incumbent cabinet member of a very unpopular twelve-year Presidency, who over the last three years became the clear advocate of fundamental change, running against an attractive woman”—the Socialist leader Ségolène Royal—“who is the head of the opposition,” Gingrich went on. “In a country that wanted to say, ‘Not them,’ he managed to switch the identity of the ‘them.’ He said, ‘I’m different from Chirac, and she’s not. If you want more of the same, you should vote for her.’ It was a Lincoln-quality strategic decision.”


Its a New Yorker piece, so it goes on forever. But like so many NYer articles, its filled with lots of good nuggets and insights. Worth reading the whole thing, if you have the time.

[scottinnj]

Da Prez: The "mission accomplished" it took a while, but now it's a fuckup.
The flyover of New Orleans on his way back to the White House from his vacation


Congress:
Senator Reid's "The war is lost" remark
Speaker Pelosi saying "There's a new Congress in town, Mr. President" then laying down and giving the prez EVERYTHING he wants in the Iraqi appropriations bill.

[epo]

Da Prez: The "mission accomplished" it took a while, but now it's a fuckup.
The flyover of New Orleans on his way back to the White House from his vacation


Congress:
Senator Reid's "The war is lost" remark
Speaker Pelosi saying "There's a new Congress in town, Mr. President" then laying down and giving the prez EVERYTHING he wants in the Iraqi appropriations bill.

A. The War is Lost. Bush took care of that himself.
B. Talk to Lieberman about the Iraqi appropriations bill.

[scottinnj]

He wasnt making any money on that war!


The fuck he wasn't! Clinton had Haliburton in the Balkans just like Bush has 'em in Iraq.

[scottinnj]

I didn't say Bush didn't fuck up the war in Iraq. I'm saying that Reid fucked up by saying that on the floor of the Senate while troops are in the field. He's a dumb fuck.

Doesn't matter about Lieberman. Pelosi talked shit and got called on it. She's a dumb fuck too.

Admit it. I can. Bush is a dumb fuck.
See it's not that hard.

Repeat after me.

Reid is a dumb fuck
Pelosi is a dumb fuck.

THEY ALL ARE DUMB FUCKS!

[epo]

I didn't say Bush didn't fuck up the war in Iraq. I'm saying that Reid fucked up by saying that on the floor of the Senate while troops are in the field. He's a dumb fuck.

Doesn't matter about Lieberman. Pelosi talked shit and got called on it. She's a dumb fuck too.

Admit it. I can. Bush is a dumb fuck.
See it's not that hard.

Repeat after me.

Reid is a dumb fuck
Pelosi is a dumb fuck.

THEY ALL ARE DUMB FUCKS!

Realistically the Reid comments are meaningless. All they did is rile up hardcore neo-cons, for that fact they were a mistake...but they have no real consequence.

Lieberman matters. No bill could go thru the Senate without him & he is holding the Democratic caucus hostage. I hate that prick.

Bush is an idiot. Even if Reid & Pelosi are idiots, they don't wield this "magic power" that some seem to think as they don't have a veto-proof majority. Hence you will see comprimise.

[Dudeman]

I didn't say Bush didn't fuck up the war in Iraq. I'm saying that Reid fucked up by saying that on the floor of the Senate while troops are in the field. He's a dumb fuck.

Doesn't matter about Lieberman. Pelosi talked shit and got called on it. She's a dumb fuck too.

Admit it. I can. Bush is a dumb fuck.
See it's not that hard.

Repeat after me.

Reid is a dumb fuck
Pelosi is a dumb fuck.

THEY ALL ARE DUMB FUCKS!
while they may all be dumb fucks, there are certainly varying degrees of dumb and fuck-ups. reid's comments can hardly be equated to bush's administration's handling of the war.

[scottinnj]

while they may all be dumb fucks, there are certainly varying degrees of dumb and fuck-ups. reid's comments can hardly be equated to bush's administration's handling of the war.


Oh yeah you are certainly right about that. I hope I wasn't giving the impression I was comparing the two.

They are just two separate fuckups. Yes Bush's was muchos worse

[Recyclerz]

Let's not forget that they "outed" one of our own covert CIA agents through a combination of recklessness and malfeasance, and tried (sort of successfully) to cover up the Vice-President's role in the clusterfuck.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

What makes it worse is that she was probably the only hot MILF spy we had. :sad:

[A.J.]

Sarkozy is a transforming figure in French politics, Gingrich said, and he suggested that the only Republican who shared Sarkozy’s “transformative” approach to governing was, at that moment, eating a bowl of oatmeal at the McLean Family Restaurant.

Ha! I know that place!

[Yerdaddy]

Party Unfaithful (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/04/070604fa_fact_goldberg?printable=true)

]Newt Gingrich is one of those who fear that Republicans have been branded with the label of incompetence. He says that the Bush Administration has become a Republican version of the Jimmy Carter Presidency, when nothing seemed to go right. “It’s just gotten steadily worse,” he said. “There was some point during the Iranian hostage crisis, the gasoline rationing, the malaise speech, the sweater, the rabbit”—Gingrich was referring to Carter’s suggestion that Americans wear sweaters rather than turn up their thermostats, and to the “attack” on Carter by what cartoonists quickly portrayed as a “killer rabbit” during a fishing trip—“that there was a morning where the average American went, ‘You know, this really worries me.’[/B] ” He added, “You hire Presidents, at a minimum, to run the country well enough that you don’t have to think about it, and, at a maximum, to draw the country together to meet great challenges you can’t avoid thinking about.” Gingrich continued, “When you have the collapse of the Republican Party, you have an immediate turn toward the Democrats, not because the Democrats are offering anything better, but on a ‘not them’ basis. And if you end up in a 2008 campaign between ‘them’ and ‘not them,’ ‘not them’ is going to win.”



Not since Watergate, Gingrich said, has the Republican Party been in such desperate shape. “Let me be clear: twenty-eight-per-cent approval of the President, losing every closely contested Senate seat except one, every one that involved an incumbent—that’s a collapse. I mean, look at the Northeast. You can’t be a governing national party and write off entire regions.” For this disarray he blames not only Iraq and Hurricane Katrina but also Karl Rove’s “maniacally dumb” strategy in 2004, which left Bush with no political capital. “All he proved was that the anti-Kerry vote was bigger than the anti-Bush vote,” Gingrich said. He continued, “The Bush people deliberately could not bring themselves to wage a campaign of choice”—of ideology, of suggesting that Kerry was “to the left of Ted Kennedy”—and chose instead to attack Kerry’s war record.

The only way to keep the White House in G.O.P. hands, Gingrich said, would be to nominate someone who, in essence, runs against Bush, in the style of Nicolas Sarkozy, the center-right cabinet minister who just won the French Presidency by making his own President, Jacques Chirac, his virtual opponent. Sarkozy is a transforming figure in French politics, Gingrich said, and he suggested that the only Republican who shared Sarkozy’s “transformative” approach to governing was, at that moment, eating a bowl of oatmeal at the McLean Family Restaurant.

“What’s fascinating about Sarkozy is that you have an incumbent cabinet member of a very unpopular twelve-year Presidency, who over the last three years became the clear advocate of fundamental change, running against an attractive woman”—the Socialist leader Ségolène Royal—“who is the head of the opposition,” Gingrich went on. “In a country that wanted to say, ‘Not them,’ he managed to switch the identity of the ‘them.’ He said, ‘I’m different from Chirac, and she’s not. If you want more of the same, you should vote for her.’ It was a Lincoln-quality strategic decision.”


Its a New Yorker piece, so it goes on forever. But like so many NYer articles, its filled with lots of good nuggets and insights. Worth reading the whole thing, if you have the time.

Gingrich is a smart man. He’s a passionate speaker. But he is amoral at best, and power-hungry at worst. These quotes alone talk in strong language critical of Bush and the Republicans, but instead of criticizing their policies and actions he’s bashing their political decisions. He’s angry about the harm they’ve done to the republican party, (and as much for letting Democrats win, like letting Democrats win is an intrinsic evil), but not the harm they’ve done to the country. He’s critical of the war now because it’s unpopular, not because almost 4,000 soldiers died for a lost cause that didn’t have to be lost. In fact the last time I remember Gingrich in the limelight was early on in the war when the Bush administration was doing everything possible to lose and Colin Powell’s State Department was feuding with Rummy’s DoD over control of the reconstruction. State was making the case that the military blows stuff up but doesn’t build nations – that’s State’s job, (State in fact had a nine month “Future of Iraq” program which funded Iraqi exiles to prepare for rebuilding their country and assist the future U.S. occupation authorities who were clueless about Iraqi society). A handful of prominent Republican Senators were calling for Bush to hand reconstruction over to State where it belonged. And here comes Newt doing the talk show circuit and calling the State Department “liberal” and “anti-American” and suggesting it should be disbanded altogether. He played a hatchet-man for the neocons against the less-irrationals in the administration like Powell, but now he’s distancing himself from them in preparation for running for president at the same time he’s praising Jerry Falwell’s followers on their mission to “convert all of America” to Falwell’s brand of fundamentalism. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/19/AR2007051900842_pf.html] Gingrich cares about two things: his own personal political power, and imposing on America his ideas of religious-based social policies and corporate cronyism, (Like Bush he will not reduce subsidies or political influence of big businesses and industries while he’s freeing them of regulation and oversight and letting them write the laws that govern themselves). He’s better suited to be president of Yemen, or Hazzard County. I don’t see any evidence that he would be an improvement over Bush. In fact I think it would be like having Cheney as President instead of VP. If you Republicans nominate this guy you will have learned nothing from the Bush administration.

I figure his statements of international isolationism will come up so let me just say: Bush made the same statements in 2000. An isolationist will betray his faith the first day in the White House like a Catholic priest in a Santa Suit.

[Yerdaddy]

I didn't say Bush didn't fuck up the war in Iraq. I'm saying that Reid fucked up by saying that on the floor of the Senate while troops are in the field. He's a dumb fuck.

Doesn't matter about Lieberman. Pelosi talked shit and got called on it. She's a dumb fuck too.

Admit it. I can. Bush is a dumb fuck.
See it's not that hard.

Repeat after me.

Reid is a dumb fuck
Pelosi is a dumb fuck.

THEY ALL ARE DUMB FUCKS!


I was very happy that Reid said that. It needed to be said. As I think any true statement needs to be said, especially in Washington, if only for catching up with all the untrue statements that get swallowed like in that town. My only problem with Reid is that he pussed out and backpedalled when he caught flack from the other side. Fuck that! Have the Dems learned nothing from the Republcans? Still!? Americans do not respect concessions. On anything. He should have said "take it back? Fuck you. Win the war. Prove me wrong motherfuckers." As for the troops in the field, I understand it's not something they want to hear, but I doubt that statement or any statement out of Washington really has much effect on morale anyway. You know what I think does have an effect? Whether we really are losing the war or not. I think soldiers understand the reality of that question more than they guage how Washington talks about the subject. And what's ultimately worse for morale than fighting for a mission that the group of political higher-ups made sure you couldn't accomplish? Reid didn't lose the war, and the soldiers fighting it sure as shit didn't lose it either. The list of failures that led to the lost cause are directly attributable to the Bush White House and yet they've never taken responsiblity for any of it. Who does that leave the blame with, if soldiers are lying in their bunks pondering what went wrong? I've seen Rummy and Cheney, Bush and Fox "News" all use the cop-out of the troops morale to justify not answering specific questions about thier failures, and about the general "negativity" of mainstream reporting of the conflict that during the first three years were condemned by all of these actors as bad for morale but have now proved to be accurate reports about what was happening. And that cop-out worked - which is why it's still used. But here we are. We cannot possibly accomplish any of the objectives of this war set by the President, (a free and democratic, peaceful Iraq that serves as a model for the rest of the people of the Middle East to demand democratic reform from their own authoritarian leaders... Ha! I actually drifted off writing that and thought I was exaggerating this description for sarcasm. But that really was the promise of the war-losers at one time. Ah! To be young and naieve again!), and in fact most experts, including the Baker Commission predict a worsenging of the situation in Iraq and spread of the conflict through the region. And when the President ignores the question of his own role in how things are worse in Iraq than before we went in - when he fails to simply say "the buck stops here" he leaves the question of blame open for any other actor in the conflict, like the soldiers to ask "was it me? Was it us that failed?" Isn't that why Truman had that on a sign on his desk? To let it be known to the people who worked for him, including soldiers, that he accepted his responsibility so they were free to judge thier roles simply by how well they felt they did their jobs and not by whether the overall mission is a success or failure?

Ultimately I don't think most soldiers pay attention to what's said in Washington. What we've been asking them to do, especially with all the extended tours and shortened home visits, is just too demanding for them to sort through the Fog of Washington. (I just coined that phrase. Isn't it cool?) But what does matter to their morale, I'm sure, is facts on the ground.

That said, Washington, (and ordinary Americans), need to finally get around to dealing with reality on Iraq. It's not enough to say "we're stuck with Bush, so shut up". The question of "what can we accomplish, and what can we not accomplish in Iraq?" Yesterday Bush said he envisions the American presence in Iraq to be comparable to the one in South Korea. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070531/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq&printer=1;_ylt=AtIBQXsWUZywbRXpNXyYMHQGw_IE) The Commander In Chief is insane! In the same article it's reported that May is the deadliest month for American soldiers since the assault on Fallujah 2 1/2 years ago, with 116 deaths. When was the last time we lost 116 American soldiers in South Korea? 1953? Is South Korea producing and exporting terrorists like Iraq is and will continue to do for a generation or more? (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/world/middleeast/28exodus.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print) And why is the White House putting out this delusion? We all know. It's to give it to the right-wing pundits to get that idea out to their base to pacify them and to distract them from the fact that Iraq is NOT going to be like the American presence in South Korea. And that it's his fault that it's going to be nothing like South Korea. What was the question? Whoops! I did it again. Consider that my rant fix for... this hour.

[scottinnj]

Dude, I totally disagree with you on Reid.

Not for the reasons you stated-it's time to leave Iraq. No question there. But how we leave is now the debate.
Being a veteran, I would have been pissed off if somebody in the Senate had said that during Desert Storm. My father would have been pissed if someone in the Senate had said that during World War II-rememer we were LOSING that war for a while as well, for two damn years after Pearl Harbor we were losing islands in the Pacific or just barely holding onto them at an extraordinary cost of American lives. If a Republican had stood up in the Senate and said that for political points-which is what Reid wanted and nothing more because all he thinks of is how to score political points-he would have been recalled by the voters who elected him for being a fucking traitor. No ifs, ands or buts. But since its not a popular war now, it's safe to defend him and even go as far as to say he was correct to say what he said.
I will never say he isn't allowed to say what he said. But he's a fucking loser for saying it. Even people like me who agree now its time to leave has seen what he said and just want to kick his teeth in. He's a douchebag who has no answers, no political capital to end the war and no skills in guiding the Senate now that the Democrats have the majority. The Democrats should remove him from his leadership status, put him in the corner with a dunce cap and run a competent leader to replace him next time he is up for election. He reminds me of Jimmy Carter-just a complete loser with sound bytes for statements. Not saying the Republicans are any better, but I expected more out of the Democrats and their leaders with all the smiles and promises they gave us after last November. Turns out they are no better and are just as big a bunch of fucktards as the Republicans.

[JokesaboutPants]

I think all the nifty articles sited and quoted are great or whatever, and I generally try to stay out of war conversations but with that being said I'm new to the board so what better way to make a splash.

First off I respect everyone's opinion but as we all understand other's opinions can anger you. After 13 years in the Army, one deployment in Kosovo, two now in Iraq and another surely to come I can say that the President has done more for people living in true fear, pain, and oppression than our last two Presidents combined' and he will be remembered for it.

It's easy to sit here and site mistakes, the times he has, and will most certainly misspeak, but keep in mind that people are not living in the fear of being tortured for doing what people do. Yes there are still attacks and will continue to be; but there were and more before the war but these were not reported because the US did not have a presence there.
--Like what is happening the Sudan, Darfur now...

We have one shot at life in this rock and I've seen the best and the worst of it. The President helped a few more people experience the best.

--Just my two cents--Why not.

[scottinnj]

First of all,
Thanks for serving our country. You rock just for that.

Secondly,
Feel free to speak your mind here on this board. I usually go off on a rant, get all twisted up and then Yerdaddy comes in to calm me down. Or vice versa, but usually it's the former because Yerdaddy is smarter then me.
Anyway, welcome to the board.

[JokesaboutPants]

First of all,
Thanks for serving our country. You rock just for that.

Secondly,
Feel free to speak your mind here on this board. I usually go off on a rant, get all twisted up and then Yerdaddy comes in to calm me down. Or vice versa, but usually it's the former because Yerdaddy is smarter then me.
Anyway, welcome to the board.



Thanks scottinnj, and may I say, you rock Sir. You rock.

[Yerdaddy]

You both rock. I totally respect both of your opinions, and partially agree with both of you. I'm totally up for a circle-jerk if you two want to meet me half-way, like maybe Hawaii or Liberia? But this question, (whether Reid should have said the war is lost or not), is more complicated that it would seem. For example I don't think it's time to pull out of Iraq. I'm close because I think our presense is less popular with Iraqis than it was a year and a half ago, because recent reports by the Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction that show reconstruction is a near total failure, and because we are now policing the civil war we failed to prevent. I still think we need to stay however because we will only have to return if we leave. Pulling out won't save American lives. And also Iraq is now the Afghanistan of the 90s - it's the Middle East University of Terrorism but with a new campus ten times the size as the old ones and with more and more modern hands-on laboratories. We have to be there to keep pressure on the camps and try to blow them up faster than they can build them.

But I do think the war is lost. It's simply impossible to achieve any of the objectives we set when we went in. We are simply a finger in the dyke of regional conflict that will rain terror on the world if the lid comes off. And it might. Actually, scratch that. It will. I expect that when I return to Yemen I will be reporting on sucessful acts of terrorism in that country because their 20% of al-Quaeda in Iraq will return home with practical knowledge of how to be a good terrorist.

And Washington is acting like this is Vietnam - that we can airlift the Americans out of the Green Zone, with our Iraqi staff dropping off the skids, and forget about it. The majority of the American public thinks and wants the same. And I find that to be a huge problem. Bush wants to stay and probably believes his own fantasies about Iraq working out with a largely peaceful stalemate that will hold for the next 50 years. The rest of the politicians from both parties want to make the public happy and pull out. And nobody is dealing with reality in Iraq. It's not Vietnam. These dominoes will tumble - are already tumbling! If we don't deal with reality for the first time since September 12, 2001 then we are looking at a global clash of civilizations that will last well beyond our lifetimes.

In that sense I think WWII is a good analogy. But we were losing then - we hadn't lost. We lost Iraq and we're losing the Wurr on Turr. If Reid had said we lost WWII, yes, he should be sent home packing. If he said we lost the Wurr on Turr, then the same. But he didn't. We can contain the overall Wurr. But Iraq cannot be won. The mission in Iraq is like Vietnam. And it was important to ending that conflict that people admitted it "could not be won". Thousands of American lives could have been spared if we had admitted it earlier and acted on that reality. The major difference between WWII and now is that Roosevelt was not in complete denial of reality for the first six years of the war. Bush is, and we know what that has cost us. The man has been under some quiet political pressure from Republicans since before the war and it has taken until the firing of Rummy to do any good at all. (When I was lobbying in late '02 I had staffers for high-ranking Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees who told me their bosses were scared of the lack of planning by the adminsitration and that they were trying to pressure the White House but would not do so publically.) But it took three years for Bush to respond to anyone outside his circle of neocon psychotics in any meaningful way. But in the last six months he's come a long way - replacing his military leadership on the ground with his most experienced critics. He dismissed the Iraq Study Group Report in public but quietly and belatedly adopted many of its key reccommendations. I think this is an opportunity for the rational subculture in Washington to put the right kind of pressure on the President before Cheney and Rove cut him off from it and convince him to go back to operating from the Cone of Silence they had set up for him in the White House Death Star.

So I'm arguing for realism in Washington. Not for political grandstanding. I'm not sure if Reid was grandstanding or not. I think he's a whinning little faggot of a politician and should not be in leadership. But I know he was stating an unspoken truth that alot of people know but don't want to say for the political repurcussions. But I also think it's time to fuck the political repurcussions. I wish it was Republican Chuck Hegel who had said we'd lost. Then maybe it might have meant something. I know he would have explained his reasoning rather than backing off like the Democrats always do - even when they're right.

So final analysis: right words out of the wrong mouth.

JokesaboutPants - I'd be curious to know where you were stationed? I completely believe what you say about Iraqis lives improving in some parts of the country. The vast majority of the violence is occuring around Baghdad and al-Anbar province. I've got a buddy who's a British Marine who served in the South and had a great time. (He really did. He was a giant teddy bear of a man, but he was a bit off.) I met him in Yemen where he was studying Arabic because he liked the Iraqis and wanted to go back. But he was also studying the war at uni and for the Marines and, along with what he knew from his American soldier friends, he said the difference between where he was and Anbar was heaven and hell. I've also met former CPA officials and a couple of young Iraqis from Fallujah and Ramadi who described what it was like a couple years ago and it was ugly and getting worse now. And ultimately if the state fails the civil war will expand and nobody will be left out. Right now there are 2 million Iraqi refugees outside the country and another 2 million internally-displaced, which is the fastest growing refugee crisis in the world.

Now all of the bad places I hear about all the time. So whatever you're willing to tell me about where you know and what it's like I'd love to hear about it. PMs or on the board, or not at all would be cool. I'd understand if you want to get away from it while you're home.

Likewise, I thank you greatly for your service.

[high fly]

Dude, I totally disagree with you on Reid.

Not for the reasons you stated-it's time to leave Iraq. No question there. But how we leave is now the debate.
Being a veteran, I would have been pissed off if somebody in the Senate had said that during Desert Storm. My father would have been pissed if someone in the Senate had said that during World War II-rememer we were LOSING that war for a while as well, for two damn years after Pearl Harbor we were losing islands in the Pacific or just barely holding onto them at an extraordinary cost of American lives.

What the hell are you talking about?
We lost the Philippines, Guam and Wake in the first few months after Pearl Harbor, but about 9 months after Pearl Harbor we landed on Guadalcanal and pushed-em back from then on.
4 years into this Iraq fiasco and the other side still has the initiative and is growing stronger.

If you look at Reid's entire statement, he was right.


And did you see my list of Bush administration fuck-ups, above?


Not bad, eh?

[scottinnj]

Yeah, and the battle for Guadalcanal took almost 6 months-we officially took the island in February 1943. So it is a year and a half we were either losing or "HOLDING OUR OWN" so we are both right-you on actual time and me making my point. And the time is moot anyway. I was making a point about soldiers in the field of battle being told by their political leaders the mission they are on is hopeless. On December 8th, 1941, we didn't know if we were going to win, and my point is if a douchebag politician had said that back then, for the sole purpose of hurting your political opponent, with the outcome NOT known yet, he would have been recalled by his constituents-and rightly so. And if he had meant it, like some of you are arguing, he should be removed from office for being a COWARD! And if he truly disagrees with the commander in chief, then come up with an alternative and say what it is. Say WHY you disagree-it's fine to do and debate is good.
And again, I want OUT just like everyone else. Bush is running the war like a douchebag.
But it isn't LOST!
If Reid REALLY believes the war in Iraq is lost, then bring home the troops TOMORROW! Don't roll over and die and give in to the President's ultimatum, ESPECIALLY when the American people agree with you to pull out the troops. Giving into the President is being a coward-and it's the cowards saying the war is lost. It's not, but if the President doesn't change tactics, then pull the troops out. If he does (not just surge the troops to do the same thing as always) give it a chance and elect someone in 2008 who has a WINNING strategy to WIN in Iraq.

[scottinnj]

I like to think about the things Bush has done right:


Attack Afghanistan.
Ban Effedra.


That's all I've got. It's been 6.5 very long years for this progressive.


Way to look at the bright side of things....
I agree. It's been a long time for me too as a conservative. I can't wait until November 2008 to vote for real change.
Unfortunately, the only choices I have on the Republican side are Guiliani and Romney.
It's a shame that Ron Paul probably won't be the nominee. By the time the Republican nomination comes to NJ, he'll probably be out of the campaign.

[high fly]

Yeah, and the battle for Guadalcanal took almost 6 months-we officially took the island in February 1943. So it is a year and a half we were either losing or "HOLDING OUR OWN" so we are both right-you on actual time and me making my point.

I have to disagree with your math and characterization of what took place prior to Feb. 1943. The Guadalcanal campaign lasted till February, but it was pretty much over well before then. We were not losing or "holding our own.
We had the initiative and were chopping down the Japanese and German war machines. By Feb. 1943 we had wiped out a huge chunk of Japan's best fighter pilots, had defeated her navy several times, had advanced on New Guinea and landed in North Africa.


And the time is moot anyway. I was making a point about soldiers in the field of battle being told by their political leaders the mission they are on is hopeless. On December 8th, 1941, we didn't know if we were going to win, and my point is if a douchebag politician had said that back then, for the sole purpose of hurting your political opponent, with the outcome NOT known yet, he would have been recalled by his constituents-and rightly so. And if he had meant it, like some of you are arguing, he should be removed from office for being a COWARD! And if he truly disagrees with the commander in chief, then come up with an alternative and say what it is. Say WHY you disagree-it's fine to do and debate is good.
And again, I want OUT just like everyone else. Bush is running the war like a douchebag.
But it isn't LOST!


It is according to a study commissioned by the Pentagon in 2003 that said we had a limited widow of opportunity to get things under control or forget it.
Is winning possible?
Maybe, but not with the military we have over there nor with the political leaders we have here.
Read Hackworth's About Face In Vietnam, he studied the war for the Pentagon with S.L.A. Marshall. One important point Hackworth makes is counterinsurgency warfare is so different from conventional warfare, that the worst troops you can use are Marines and Airborne because of their aggressiveness and use of overwhelming firepower.

You don't put MPs in fighter plane cockpits, nor do you have paratroopers drive submarines. For counterinsurgency warfare you employ troops trained specially for it - the Green Berets.

We are not using the proper troops appropriate for the mission and we have a failed strategy that does nothing but keep failing.

The people do not want us there and none of the above is going to change.



If Reid REALLY believes the war in Iraq is lost, then bring home the troops TOMORROW! Don't roll over and die and give in to the President's ultimatum, ESPECIALLY when the American people agree with you to pull out the troops. Giving into the President is being a coward-and it's the cowards saying the war is lost. It's not, but if the President doesn't change tactics, then pull the troops out. If he does (not just surge the troops to do the same thing as always) give it a chance and elect someone in 2008 who has a WINNING strategy to WIN in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

[high fly]

Scott,
Yeah, and the battle for Guadalcanal took almost 6 months-we officially took the island in February 1943. So it is a year and a half we were either losing or "HOLDING OUR OWN" so we are both right-you on actual time and me making my point.

I have to disagree with your math and characterization of what took place prior to Feb. 1943. The Guadalcanal campaign lasted till February, but it was pretty much over well before then. We were not losing or "holding our own.
We had the initiative and were chopping down the Japanese and German war machines. By Feb. 1943 we had wiped out a huge chunk of Japan's best fighter pilots, had defeated her navy several times, had advanced on New Guinea and landed in North Africa.


And the time is moot anyway. I was making a point about soldiers in the field of battle being told by their political leaders the mission they are on is hopeless. On December 8th, 1941, we didn't know if we were going to win, and my point is if a douchebag politician had said that back then, for the sole purpose of hurting your political opponent, with the outcome NOT known yet, he would have been recalled by his constituents-and rightly so. And if he had meant it, like some of you are arguing, he should be removed from office for being a COWARD! And if he truly disagrees with the commander in chief, then come up with an alternative and say what it is. Say WHY you disagree-it's fine to do and debate is good.
And again, I want OUT just like everyone else. Bush is running the war like a douchebag.
But it isn't LOST!


It is according to a study commissioned by the Pentagon in 2003 that said we had a limited window of opportunity to get things under control or forget it.
Is winning possible?
Maybe, but not with the military we have over there nor with the political leaders we have here.
Read Hackworth's About Face In Vietnam, he studied the war for the Pentagon with S.L.A. Marshall. One important point Hackworth makes is counterinsurgency warfare is so different from conventional warfare, that the worst troops you can use are Marines and Airborne because of their aggressiveness and use of overwhelming firepower.

You don't put MPs in fighter plane cockpits, nor do you have paratroopers drive submarines. For counterinsurgency warfare you employ troops trained specially for it - the Green Berets.

We are not using the proper troops appropriate for the mission and we have a failed strategy that does nothing but keep failing.

The people do not want us there and none of the above is going to change.


Did you see Reid's entire quote?
He was saying that with Bush in charge, we would not win.
The reason they don't try to bring the troops home now is not a matter of courage, but of having the votes.
It took a long time for pressure to build over Vietnam, and we will see this country likewise get disgusted with Bush trying to run out the clock.

[Yerdaddy]

Way to look at the bright side of things....
I agree. It's been a long time for me too as a conservative. I can't wait until November 2008 to vote for real change.
Unfortunately, the only choices I have on the Republican side are Guiliani and Romney.
It's a shame that Ron Paul probably won't be the nominee. By the time the Republican nomination comes to NJ, he'll probably be out of the campaign.

Why not McCain?

[Dudeman]

Why not McCain?

http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/mccain_bush-hug-713122.jpg

[A.J.]

Why not McCain?

Why not McBain?

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/1660/mcbain_gun.jpg

[foodcourtdruide]

Why not McClane?

http://www.toxicshock.tv/news/wp-content/uploads/live_free_or_die_hard.jpg

[scottinnj]

I just don't trust the guy. He was so against the President in the first of the Bush administration, now he is acting like a real suckup.

[Yerdaddy]

I just don't trust the guy. He was so against the President in the first of the Bush administration, now he is acting like a real suckup.

I chalk that up to electoral politics, which I don't begrudge politicians nearly as much as I once did. Bush has taught me that it's really important to win elections - or to keep someone else from winning them.

But I'm a bit surprised to see you've eliminated him. Honestly, on Iraq, and in fact international policy in general, he's the guy I trust the most at this point - Democrat or Republican. He's been critical of the running of the war for at least the last couple of years. And his criticism has been very specific and on the mark, which only a few politicians have been willing to do. I think he, (along with Hegel, Lugar and Warner), are about the only Republicans that have shown any moral courage to criticize their party for the sake of the country on Iraq. Most of the rest I have no choice but to consider cowards, willing to put party and their own power above the country. (I'm focussing on the Republicans because they were the only ones who's criticism might have mattered to the administration.)

I think McCain's expressions of support for Bush and the war have been generalized, but he's never shied away from attacking the specific failures in handling the war, which is critically important to actually effecting change - like all the positive staff changes the administration has finally made in the last six months.

McCain is the only Republican in the field, (with the exception of the nutty and unelectable Ron Paul), who I see would do things any different from Bush. I see none of them qualified to even understand what's happening in Iraq, and none of them with the sense to resist the political temptation to attack Iran.

Right now I'm torn between supporting Hillary or McCain. How crazy is that?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Add The Immigration bill that was defeated to the list. His base has abandoned him on this issue, One factor is probably it had Kennedy's backing on it. Alot of Republicans called him out on this during the last debate

[Yerdaddy]

Add The Immigration bill that was defeated to the list. His base has abandoned him on this issue, One factor is probably it had Kennedy's backing on it. Alot of Republicans called him out on this during the last debate

Yeah. They called him "the Kennedy wing of the party" and derided the principle of compromise. Because they're extremist cocksuckers.

[high fly]

I chalk that up to electoral politics, which I don't begrudge politicians nearly as much as I once did. Bush has taught me that it's really important to win elections - or to keep someone else from winning them.



Yes, but don't you think there should be some limit to how many shit sandwiches you'll eat to get in office?

McCain doesn't have to go out and hate on Bush, but let's not forget what the Bush machine did to McCain in South Carolina in 2000, and which Bush said was "just politics" when he refused, in a tv debate, to order the following stopped:

They said McCain, as a POW had sex with his jailers.
They also said that he was "turned" by the Soviets, and sent back to America as a traitorous spy to sell out his country.
They also said that McCain had many affairs with black hookers (also telling people that was his thing - black hookers) and that the brown-skinned chile he and his wife adopted from one of Mother Theresa's orphanages was REALLY the product of one of McCain's liasons with black prostitutes.
They also said that from these liasons, McCain got VD and it destroyed his wife's uterus.


Like I said, a rational man, a man with backbone wouldn't suck up to the one who was in charge of the effort that put that crap out.
Sure, at social affairs he would have to be polite, but he'd also be well within his rights to cut the bastard dead.

[Yerdaddy]

Yes, but don't you think there should be some limit to how many shit sandwiches you'll eat to get in office?

McCain doesn't have to go out and hate on Bush, but let's not forget what the Bush machine did to McCain in South Carolina in 2000, and which Bush said was "just politics" when he refused, in a tv debate, to order the following stopped:

They said McCain, as a POW had sex with his jailers.
They also said that he was "turned" by the Soviets, and sent back to America as a traitorous spy to sell out his country.
They also said that McCain had many affairs with black hookers (also telling people that was his thing - black hookers) and that the brown-skinned chile he and his wife adopted from one of Mother Theresa's orphanages was REALLY the product of one of McCain's liasons with black prostitutes.
They also said that from these liasons, McCain got VD and it destroyed his wife's uterus.


Like I said, a rational man, a man with backbone wouldn't suck up to the one who was in charge of the effort that put that crap out.
Sure, at social affairs he would have to be polite, but he'd also be well within his rights to cut the bastard dead.

And he called Bush out on TV for that and what happened? Bush won the rest of the primaries. Republicans expect loyalty. You can do all the sneaky shit to each other you want as long as you maintian plausible deniability. Their voters will reward that. But open confrontation is dangerous politically. And I don't expect poloticians to fall on their sword for any exept the most important causes, like when your party is losing a war. In that regards McCain has been more openly critical than any Republican except maybe three - Hegel, Lugar and Ron Paul. And this, as well as his moderate pragmatic positions, and bi-partisan work that has gotten much important legislation actually passed, (like McCain-Feingold), have all hurt him politically in this and past presidential campaigns. For that I give him a pass for pandering to the extreme right and coddling Bush in more general terms.

[Yerdaddy]

"The Double Douche"