Further Proof We Are Doomed As A Nation...

[MadMatt]

OK, I'm not a big Hillary Clinton fan, but this latest article is rediculous. Clinton made comments about needing to start planning a US withdrawal from Iraq and the Pentagon tears her a new one. They essentially call her an Al-Queda sympathizer. Here's the Link (http://www.comcast.net/news/politics/index.jsp?cat=POLITICS&fn=/2007/07/19/718652.html&cvqh=itn_hillary).


WASHINGTON - The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda...

..."Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

WTF?!?!?!?!

If the Pentagon DOESN'T start planning the withdrawal things WILL end up like Vietnam, Lebanon, etc. It was poor planning/lack of planning that turned those conflicts into a complete cluster-F and the same thing is happening in Iraq.

We HAVE to plan things out so the US, our Armed Forces, and our Allies don't end up getting f-ed again. What a bunch of assholes these Pentagon tools are. We are doomed.

[EliSnow]

It's S.O.P. during a conflict, etc. for those supporting the conflict to call someone suggesting something like withdrawal, peace talks, or protest a traitor or sympathizer for the other side.

It's often bullshit, but that's life. And it happens everywhere with every conflict and has gone on forever. So it's not a sign that we're doomed as a nation.

[Midkiff]

fuck the pentagon

[epo]

Isn't Eric Edelman (the guy in the quote) a Bush political appointee from the infamous 2005 Senate recess?

[scottinnj]

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."


That is a true statement. Making it public to "rebuke" the Senator was a mistake, the undersecretary should have gone to her personally, but the statement is correct.

[HBox]

That is a true statement. Making it public to "rebuke" the Senator was a mistake, the undersecretary should have gone to her personally, but the statement is correct.

The same allies who said that we can withdraw whenever we like to would be unnerved if we talked about withdrawing?

[Grendel_Kahn]

That is a true statement. Making it public to "rebuke" the Senator was a mistake, the undersecretary should have gone to her personally, but the statement is correct.


While I am in no way a Hillary fan, I do not think she is out of line. The REAL issue here is Iraqi forces have no sense of urgency to take over the running ( and day to day operations ) of their country. WE are the fall back plan "B". The very real proposition that we are leaving must be made clear to them.

As far as the quote of " reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia" Being alive and aware of all three conflicts I don't think it to be a question of propaganda or even a "perception" as much as a statement of fact. Vietnam was mismanaged in every practical way from the advisors to the helicoptor on the roof. A-Z. It took a very long time for the American populous to have a little faith in the government. Lebanon was an in and out. And rightly so. Somalia to my way of thinking was the victim of partisan politics in the United States. Ross Perot was right. There was and continues to be constant gridlock in government. Right down party lines do they vote. I remember the cries of " NO WAR FOR MONICA!" The screeches of " NO WAG THE DOG!!" Yet now we look back and see those same voices were the ones accusing Clinton of not " doing enough" of not " taking care of the problem". You cannot have it both ways.

I'm starting to think Dawn Cumia's brother Anthony has the right idea about pulling our military back.

[MadMatt]

The point is we HAVE to start planning for a withdrawal. The US is bound to leave Iraq some time, and if popular opinion has anything to do with it, probably sooner than later.

It is irrational and idiotic to not work out an exit strategy. It will ultimately benefit our allies and our nation. NOT talking about it will fuck everything up.

And who says we have to let up? Part of the plan could be to INCREASE the number of soldiers in Iraq, actually get things under control, hand over the reigns of government, and then "come home." WTF is wrong with that?

[scottinnj]

While I am in no way a Hillary fan, I do not think she is out of line. The REAL issue here is Iraqi forces have no sense of urgency to take over the running ( and day to day operations ) of their country. WE are the fall back plan "B". The very real proposition that we are leaving must be made clear to them.

As far as the quote of " reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia" Being alive and aware of all three conflicts I don't think it to be a question of propaganda or even a "perception" as much as a statement of fact. Vietnam was mismanaged in every practical way from the advisors to the helicoptor on the roof. A-Z. It took a very long time for the American populous to have a little faith in the government. Lebanon was an in and out. And rightly so. Somalia to my way of thinking was the victim of partisan politics in the United States. Ross Perot was right. There was and continues to be constant gridlock in government. Right down party lines do they vote. I remember the cries of " NO WAR FOR MONICA!" The screeches of " NO WAG THE DOG!!" Yet now we look back and see those same voices were the ones accusing Clinton of not " doing enough" of not " taking care of the problem". You cannot have it both ways.

I'm starting to think Dawn Cumia's brother Anthony has the right idea about pulling our military back.


I hope I didn't give the impression that Senator Clinton was out of line. To be clear, I think that she is the most moderate of the people opposed to the President's plan. And that is why I think the under-secretary of defense should have kept the comment to himself and communicated his opinions to Hillary in private. While I believe he is correct, I don't think picking a fight with the Senator solved anything or changed anybody's minds.

The difference of saying how President Clinton "didn't do enough" and now is the difference in policy in going after the terrorists. Clinton took a law enforcement approach, while Bush went the military route. In turn, I could say all those opposing this war because we are in the middle of a civil war were the same who defended President Clinton when he got us in the middle of the Bosnian civil war. But I don't want to go down that road, because it's a moot argument that solves nothing. And I'm real tired of the partisanship too, and I'm sick of both sides posturing and talking tough while soldiers are dying. I want to leave Iraq, but I want it stable as well. I was there in 90-91, my niece was there last year, and I don't want my kid going there in 5 years when he turns 18.


I think Anthony is on to something. I think the diabolical laugh rocks. I just hope Anthony makes Fezzie the secretary of all things Fez. One can only hope.

[epo]

Here's a legitimate question: Why doesn't Bush use this moment in time to blame the Iraqis for a lack of progress, begin a measured withdrawl & take credit for it?

That would allow him to save face currently & historically, save American lives that are seemingly dying for nothing & save his party in the 2008 elections.

Instead he is intent on holding onto this Iraq thing and guaranteeing that the Democrats sweep every election in this nation in 2008. As a Democrat the 2008 part is great, but I would rather my president (I never voted for him, but he is) make the right decisions for our nation.

[scottinnj]

Here's a legitimate question: Why doesn't Bush use this moment in time to blame the Iraqis for a lack of progress, begin a measured withdrawl & take credit for it?

That would allow him to save face currently & historically, save American lives that are seemingly dying for nothing & save his party in the 2008 elections.

Instead he is intent on holding onto this Iraq thing and guaranteeing that the Democrats sweep every election in this nation in 2008. As a Democrat the 2008 part is great, but I would rather my president (I never voted for him, but he is) make the right decisions for our nation.

Because he is a super-douche who is throwing the kitchen sink at this to save his legacy. Nothing more, nothing less. He is too arrogant to admit he made a mistake, and is ignoring good, meaningful debate from EVERYONE except those within his tight circle so as to justify to himself he will be regarded as a good president "when History tells the story" YECH!

[scottinnj]

That would allow him to save face currently & historically, save American lives that are seemingly dying for nothing & save his party in the 2008 elections.

Instead he is intent on holding onto this Iraq thing and guaranteeing that the Democrats sweep every election in this nation in 2008. As a Democrat the 2008 part is great......"

You guys must be salivating for the inevitable in 2008. I say "good for you" and maybe you all can figure out a way to generate 1.21 jigawatts of power to speed up the process. I'm tired of watching my party bleed out like a disgraced Roman Senator.

[epo]

You guys must be salivating for the inevitable in 2008. I say "good for you" and maybe you all can figure out a way to generate 1.21 jigawatts of power to speed up the process. I'm tired of watching my party bleed out like a disgraced Roman Senator.

I'm not going to speed for others, but I'm just ready to get rid of Bush. The only thing I am a little frightened of is the prospect of controlling all both houses & the White House. While I like the idea, parties that do that, generally don't historically look at the middle ground.

However I am pretty confident in the big house for 08'. It's like the easiest sell ever. No matter the Democrat, no matter the Republican the equation will look like this:

Republican = Bush
Democrat = Not Bush

Even Bob Shrum couldn't fuck that one up....could he?

[Grendel_Kahn]

Here's a legitimate question: Why doesn't Bush use this moment in time to blame the Iraqis for a lack of progress, begin a measured withdrawl & take credit for it?

That would allow him to save face currently & historically, save American lives that are seemingly dying for nothing & save his party in the 2008 elections.

Instead he is intent on holding onto this Iraq thing and guaranteeing that the Democrats sweep every election in this nation in 2008. As a Democrat the 2008 part is great, but I would rather my president (I never voted for him, but he is) make the right decisions for our nation.

I cannot believe that it took this long in America for a point like that, so simple, so eloquent, and to the point to be spoken aloud. The fact that it comes in a message board for a comedy RADIO show is disgraceful.

Bravo to you for a brilliant post.

[Recyclerz]

In other news today, George W. Bush is about to declare himself an absoute monarch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625.html?hpid=topnews

I've said this before and I'm saying it again: I think this regime is some kind of cosmic test to see if America deserves to be a democracy. If we can't use the tools in our political system to squash this incompetent yet voraciously ambitious cabal currently running and ruining the country, I don't think we deserve to pretend anymore that we revere Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et al. as our inspiration. If W continues to skate with this kind of egregious disrespect for the laws and traditions of our political system I suggest we adopt a new national motto "America - Yeah, I guess we won't complain if you fuck us up the ass without asking." Wordy, perhaps, but all too true. :down:

[Yerdaddy]

While I am in no way a Hillary fan, I do not think she is out of line. The REAL issue here is Iraqi forces have no sense of urgency to take over the running ( and day to day operations ) of their country. WE are the fall back plan "B". The very real proposition that we are leaving must be made clear to them.

As far as the quote of " reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia" Being alive and aware of all three conflicts I don't think it to be a question of propaganda or even a "perception" as much as a statement of fact. Vietnam was mismanaged in every practical way from the advisors to the helicoptor on the roof. A-Z. It took a very long time for the American populous to have a little faith in the government. Lebanon was an in and out. And rightly so. Somalia to my way of thinking was the victim of partisan politics in the United States. Ross Perot was right. There was and continues to be constant gridlock in government. Right down party lines do they vote. I remember the cries of " NO WAR FOR MONICA!" The screeches of " NO WAG THE DOG!!" Yet now we look back and see those same voices were the ones accusing Clinton of not " doing enough" of not " taking care of the problem". You cannot have it both ways.

I'm starting to think Dawn Cumia's brother Anthony has the right idea about pulling our military back.

I agree with this.

I'll add this: Our biggest obstacle right now in Iraq is the Iraqi government is worthless. One of the key themes running through the Iraq Study Group Report on Iraq was to send the message to the Iraqi government that our support is not unconditional and that we will leave if their political leaders aren't taking their responsibilities to secure and develop the country. Nothing has changed and they're still pussyfooting around in Baghdad and it's in part because Bush is talking about being in Iraq for 50 years like Korea so they know they've got us there for at least another year and a half. On the other hand, the democrat's position lets the Iraqi government know that we may be off like a prom dress in a year and a half.

Which party is more in line with putting the needed pressure on the Iraqi government?

And, in fact, I've heard military commanders say that they need the position of the democrats to make the case to the Iraqis that they have to take responsibilities because we may be gone.

So this is just one more example of how the administration has politicized this war from the beginning. They might even believe that "loose lips sink ships" propaganda Nazi horseshit. And that's because they're more interested in attacking their domestic enemies than defending the country by winning in Iraq. That is the nature of ideologues - only the political world exists. That's why there was no plan for Iraq. That's why they only allowed members of their conservative loyalist cult go over to build the country while the qualified people stayed home. That's why they've never had a clue what was happening on the ground over there. Nothing's changed.

It's been my S.O.P. to knock the teeth out of anyone who questions my patriotism. I think it's past time for Democrats to adopt the same policy. I think if Americans saw an Obama or Biden beatdown on national TV the Dems would win the White House in a landslide. They've been taking that "traitor" shit for way too long and it makes them look like pussies. And we'd rather have a psychotic retard as Commander In Chief than a pussy.

But I'm not too worried just yet. I still predict that at some point this election we will see Hillary Clinton in a smart cream-colored pant-suit standing next to her opponent's podium with one hand reached behind it just below waist-level and a well-groomed middle aged man hunched over in a navy blue suit that's stretched in a circular pattern towards his groin agreeing with Clinton as she spits at him: "What'd I tell you about that traitor shit motherfucker? Never happen again now, right? Hillary loves America, right? Say it bitch! Say it..."

[Fat_Sunny]

Here's a legitimate question: Why doesn't Bush use this moment in time to blame the Iraqis for a lack of progress, begin a measured withdrawl & take credit for it?

That would allow him to save face currently & historically, save American lives that are seemingly dying for nothing & save his party in the 2008 elections.

Instead he is intent on holding onto this Iraq thing and guaranteeing that the Democrats sweep every election in this nation in 2008. As a Democrat the 2008 part is great, but I would rather my president (I never voted for him, but he is) make the right decisions for our nation.

Very Good, Sir. A Variation Would Be To "Declare Victory" And Withdraw Saying "Mission Accomplished".

Incredibly, The Approval Ratings For Congress Are 1/2 Of GW's!! Apparently, The Public Expected To See A Change Of Course When They Put The Dems In Power Last Year, And No One Is Seeing Any Change, And Congress Is Getting The Blame. The 2008 Election Is Certainly Not In The Bag For The Democrats.

[Yerdaddy]

You guys must be salivating for the inevitable in 2008. I say "good for you" and maybe you all can figure out a way to generate 1.21 jigawatts of power to speed up the process. I'm tired of watching my party bleed out like a disgraced Roman Senator.

I still give it 3-2 odds in favor of Republicans. They elected a retarded draft-dodging chimp with no resume twice against two decorated war veterans with long national-level politcal resumes. Republicans know how to win elections.

[Yerdaddy]

Incredibly, The Approval Ratings For Congress Are 1/2 Of GW's!! Apparently, The Public Expected To See A Change Of Course When They Put The Dems In Power Last Year, And No One Is Seeing Any Change, And Congress Is Getting The Blame. The 2008 Election Is Certainly Not In The Bag For The Democrats.

How do Congress' approval ratings usually compare to the White House's?

[TheMojoPin]

Very Good, Sir. A Variation Would Be To "Declare Victory" And Withdraw Saying "Mission Accomplished".

Incredibly, The Approval Ratings For Congress Are 1/2 Of GW's!! Apparently, The Public Expected To See A Change Of Course When They Put The Dems In Power Last Year, And No One Is Seeing Any Change, And Congress Is Getting The Blame. The 2008 Election Is Certainly Not In The Bag For The Democrats.

Approval ratings for Congress are typically in the crapper no matter who has the majority. Comparing the approval ratings of the group to Bush isn't accurate...compare the individual ratings for most of the Congressmen, Rep or Dem, to Bush and you'll see a much different picture.

[Fat_Sunny]

Approval ratings for Congress are typically in the crapper no matter who has the majority. Comparing the approval ratings of the group to Bush isn't accurate...compare the individual ratings for most of the Congressmen, Rep or Dem, to Bush and you'll see a much different picture.

Granted, They Are Historically Lower Than The Executive's Ratings, But They Are Also At Historic (Record) Lows. Fat's Just Saying That The Presidential Race Is By No Means In The Bag For The Democrats.

[HBox]

Barack Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over Genocide. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19862711/)

“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.


“We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said.

....

“Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis,” Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. “There’s no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there.”


The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.


“It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions,” he said.

....

“We have not lost a military battle in Iraq. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they’re asking the wrong question,” he said. “We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with a military. We could be fighting there for the next decade.”


Obama said the answer to Iraq — and other civil conflicts — lies in diplomacy.


“When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they’re under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate. But you can’t solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun,” he said. “There’s got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts.”

[Grendel_Kahn]

Very Good, Sir. A Variation Would Be To "Declare Victory" And Withdraw Saying "Mission Accomplished".



How is a gradual withdrawl, in any way "decalring victory"? Can you not see the need to pressure the Iraqi government to take responsiblity Open ended occupation will only fuel dissent at home and abroad. Can I be a little "blue state" here and remind all reading that there WERE NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE WE GOT THERE! They were in Afghanistan, and we left. Now the Taliban is back, as well as in Pakistan. What do we do now? We NEED to regroup.

I'm very tired of hearing the same contradictory arguments over and over again. "We need to go into Iraq because it weakens the terrorists" we need to stay because the terrorists are so strong". We'll be in and out of this country in a year. They pose no threat to our ammased military might, but becareful because they are vicious warriors who will take over America, if we don't stay."

Again as I said in my earlier post. Repubs, always want it both ways.

[epo]

This Thursday Keith Olbermann gave a "Special Comment" on this topic. It's possibly his best "special comment" yet.

Link to video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8SUKWFtlDI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailykos%2Ecom%2Fstoryonly %2F2007%2F7%2F20%2F82929%2F1716)

[A.J.]

fuck the pentagon

:nono:

[spoon]

It's S.O.P. during a conflict, etc. for those supporting the conflict to call someone suggesting something like withdrawal, peace talks, or protest a traitor or sympathizer for the other side.

It's often bullshit, but that's life. And it happens everywhere with every conflict and has gone on forever. So it's not a sign that we're doomed as a nation.

No, it's our leadership, the wars we wage, the economic state of the US, the huge gap bt the upper and middle class, the lack of a strong/vast middle class, the lack of politicians being held to the standards of the voter versus corporations and greed along with many other factors that act as signs that we're doomed as a nation.

[spoon]

Barack Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over Genocide. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19862711/)

Nice post on Obama H. I'm not used to seeing fact and reason taken into account on this subject. And the reason his suggestions haven't happened yet are two-fold in my mind.

One, already mentioned, Bush needs to fulfill his "legacy" standard of which he can't possibly achieve. The man of God, who speaks to God, needs to achieve his supreme legacy that we idiots of this generation couldn't possibly understand. Yet future generation will certainly grow to adore and worship his leadership.

Secondly, how can cronyism linked to war profiteering function if we allow an international team to take over the situation in Iraq. Seriously, there is almost 10 billion fucking dollars missing right now and I'll give you one guess who pocketed most of this money and were not even counting the missing Iraqi treasury and black market oil sell off.

[FMJeff]

fuck the pentagon


these are the articulate, substantial rf.net retorts i live for

[Yerdaddy]

Originally Posted by Midkiff
fuck the pentagon
these are the articulate, substantial rf.net retorts i live for

Libbers With Attitude?

[sailor]

I still give it 3-2 odds in favor of Republicans. They elected a retarded draft-dodging chimp with no resume twice against two decorated war veterans with long national-level politcal resumes. Republicans know how to win elections.

i think you're over-selling gore's military record.

[Yerdaddy]

i think you're over-selling gore's military record.

OK. Two guys who opposed the war but fought anyway, one of them decorated, vs. a guy who says he supported it but weaseled out of it - the coward won twice. Republicans know how to win elections. Happy?

[A.J.]

I still give it 3-2 odds in favor of Republicans. They elected a retarded draft-dodging chimp with no resume twice against two decorated war veterans with long national-level politcal resumes. Republicans know how to win elections.

So do Democrats: they elected a smart, priapic draft-dodger with no resume twice against two decorated war veterans with long national-level politcal resumes.

[Yerdaddy]

So do Democrats: they elected a smart, priapic draft-dodger with no resume twice against two decorated war veterans with long national-level politcal resumes.

Hang on, I gotta look up the word "priapic", Letter Man.

[A.J.]

Think of those sculptures from Bali!

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/2749/penisespenisesah6.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

Think of those sculptures from Bali!

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/2749/penisespenisesah6.jpg

Dude! If LordJizo sees that my PM Box will never be empty again!

Being smart and a draft-dodger are not anathema to the core liberal values, and since Kennedy, neither is being priapt... preop... a horny fucker. I'll put Clinton's record as governor up against Bush's any day. And Bubba was a moderate and had undeniable charisma.

Being dumb and a draft-dodger WERE anathema to core conservative values prior to Bush, but Rove has changed that apparently, demonstrating that war veterans from Gore and Kerry to Max Cleland and John Murtha fit perfectly well under Republican campaign buses.

On the question of who was the biggest underdog, thus attributing election victories to campaigning skills, I say Clinton was not a surprise to win the nomination in 1992, was a bit of a surprise to beat Bush 1 (the "no new taxes" and "wimp factor" notwithstanding), and was not a surprise to have beat Bob Dole, who frankly was weird.

You'll have to make the case for how Bush fit as a traditional Republican candidate, because I can't think of any quality that he fits that role. I think Rove won those elections with almost ho help from Bush.

[cupcakelove]

Dude! If LordJizo sees that my PM Box will never be empty again!

Being smart and a draft-dodger are not anathema to the core liberal values, and since Kennedy, neither is being priapt... preop... a horny fucker. I'll put Clinton's record as governor up against Bush's any day. And Bubba was a moderate and had undeniable charisma.

Being dumb and a draft-dodger WERE anathema to core conservative values prior to Bush, but Rove has changed that apparently, demonstrating that war veterans from Gore and Kerry to Max Cleland and John Murtha fit perfectly well under Republican campaign buses.

On the question of who was the biggest underdog, thus attributing election victories to campaigning skills, I say Clinton was not a surprise to win the nomination in 1992, was a bit of a surprise to beat Bush 1 (the "no new taxes" and "wimp factor" notwithstanding), and was not a surprise to have beat Bob Dole, who frankly was weird.

You'll have to make the case for how Bush fit as a traditional Republican candidate, because I can't think of any quality that he fits that role. I think Rove won those elections with almost ho help from Bush.

Fiscal responsibility?

[HBox]

Being smart and a draft-dodger are not anathema to the core liberal values, and since Kennedy, neither is being priapt... preop... a horny fucker.

Pripyat?


http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/7927/13020068002b7e69b4eba1.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

Fiscal responsibility?

"The aquaduct?"

http://www.sattlers.org/mickey/site/archive/2005/01/images/life-of-brian-romans.jpg

[high fly]

OK. Two guys who opposed the war but fought anyway, one of them decorated, vs. a guy who says he supported it but weaseled out of it - the coward won twice. Republicans know how to win elections. Happy?


Yep yep yepyepyep.

Gore tried to get over there, and did, Bush tried to stay away, apparently figuring his services were more urgently needed in the effort to keep the mighty Cong Air Force out of the skies above some of the better golf courses on the Gulf Coast....

I swear, does this "Surge" remind anyone else of the incursion into Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

[A.J.]

Being smart and a draft-dodger are not anathema to the core liberal values, and since Kennedy, neither is being priapt... preop... a horny fucker. I'll put Clinton's record as governor up against Bush's any day. And Bubba was a moderate and had undeniable charisma.

I wasn't comparing their records as Governors; just noting the similarities of their backgrounds: both lost Congressional races in which they ran, both were reelected as Governors. (I forgot that Clinton had also served as Arkansas Attorney General prior to becoming Governor.) And yes, both avoided Vietnam. Bush, with Lloyd Bensten's son, kept the skies of Texas free from VC attack while Clinton did the same in England.

You'll have to make the case for how Bush fit as a traditional Republican candidate, because I can't think of any quality that he fits that role.

Ummmm, because his last name is "Bush"? He's solid GOP though: God's Own Party.

[A.J.]

I swear, does this "Surge" remind anyone else of the incursion into Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

If we go into Iran to find caches of weapons, then I guess so.

Is that what you meant?

[high fly]

If we go into Iran to find caches of weapons, then I guess so.

Is that what you meant?

No, I was thinking more of the general feel of the thing, and the way the operation was supposed to break the back of the enemy or something.
The "Surge," like the Cambodian incursion are doomed to fail because they don't address the undrlying conditions causing the fighting.

[Crispy123]

Libbers With Attitude?


http://www.itullians.com/Lpages/links/itulliansvip/difranco.jpg

[high fly]

. Bush, with Lloyd Bensten's son, kept the skies of Texas free from VC attack while Clinton did the same in England.



I believe John Connolly also had a son stashed in the "Champagne Unit" along with members of the Dallas Cowboy football team...

[A.J.]

No, I was thinking more of the general feel of the thing, and the way the operation was supposed to break the back of the enemy or something.
The "Surge," like the Cambodian incursion are doomed to fail because they don't address the undrlying conditions causing the fighting.

The surge would have worked after the fall of Baghdad in 2003 when it would have prevented the void of law and order that allowed the scum and villany to come in and take root.

You know, like having enough men at Tora Bora so that Al-Qa'ida couldn't escape.

[high fly]

The surge would have worked after the fall of Baghdad in 2003 when it would have prevented the void of law and order that allowed the scum and villany to come in and take root.

You know, like having enough men at Tora Bora so that Al-Qa'ida couldn't escape.


Yep yep yepyepyep.
I would add that the "Surge" after the fall of Baghdad would have had to be significantly larger.
The original plan, "Desert Crossing," whose ground component was drawn up by none other than Tommy Franks, called for 380,000 troops in the invasion with another 120,000 or so in reserve. In 2003 the Pentagon commissioned a study that told them the window of opportunity to get things under control would be closed in a year and All Would Be Lost.


There were troops available to fill the ground commander's request for more troops to cut off the retreat at Tora Bora bt the same ones either at CENTCOM or the Pentagon who refused to allow them the artillery and attack helicopters requested also nixed the troops.

[Yerdaddy]

And yes, both avoided Vietnam. Bush, with Lloyd Bensten's son, kept the skies of Texas free from VC attack while Clinton did the same in England.

I think Clinton was protecting England from VD attack. I bet he shot alot of zeroes, but didn't exactly help the overall effort.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

OK, I'm not a big Hillary Clinton fan, but this latest article is rediculous. Clinton made comments about needing to start planning a US withdrawal from Iraq and the Pentagon tears her a new one. They essentially call her an Al-Queda sympathizer. Here's the Link (http://www.comcast.net/news/politics/index.jsp?cat=POLITICS&fn=/2007/07/19/718652.html&cvqh=itn_hillary).


WASHINGTON - The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda...

..."Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

WTF?!?!?!?!

If the Pentagon DOESN'T start planning the withdrawal things WILL end up like Vietnam, Lebanon, etc. It was poor planning/lack of planning that turned those conflicts into a complete cluster-F and the same thing is happening in Iraq.

We HAVE to plan things out so the US, our Armed Forces, and our Allies don't end up getting f-ed again. What a bunch of assholes these Pentagon tools are. We are doomed.

I think you're over-reacting and mis-reading the quote the Pentagon made. What they said is valid and legitimate. It is mathematically and politically obvious to the simplest degree that any official plans for the U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq would boost Al Qaeda (i.e. enemy) morale. The Pentagon was NOT calling her an Al Qaeda sympathizer nor was it implying she was a pro-Terrorist. It merely said her actions would bolster Al Qaeda and terrorist morale in general- because a withdrawal, like it or not Libby Dems, is an official military admission of defeat. Like it always is. It IS Vietnam already by the way Matt, in case you didn't notice... and the only way out of Vietnam was to lose Vietnam, i.e. withdraw from Vietnam.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

On an unrelated note, with the masterful LordJizo PM box comment made a few messages up, Yerdaddy has moved up the ranks to becoming my favorite RF.net poster in this entire messageboard, in lieu of Captain America.

[sailor]

OK. Two guys who opposed the war but fought anyway, one of them decorated, vs. a guy who says he supported it but weaseled out of it - the coward won twice. Republicans know how to win elections. Happy?

i'm not defending bush. don't think you can find that in my post. wasn't gore an army journalist? that's also not an attack on him, but it's a stretch to say he fought. that's all.

[MadMatt]

I think you're over-reacting and mis-reading the quote the Pentagon made. What they said is valid and legitimate. It is mathematically and politically obvious to the simplest degree that any official plans for the U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq would boost Al Qaeda (i.e. enemy) morale. The Pentagon was NOT calling her an Al Qaeda sympathizer nor was it implying she was a pro-Terrorist. It merely said her actions would bolster Al Qaeda and terrorist morale in general- because a withdrawal, like it or not Libby Dems, is an official military admission of defeat. Like it always is. It IS Vietnam already by the way Matt, in case you didn't notice... and the only way out of Vietnam was to lose Vietnam, i.e. withdraw from Vietnam.

I'm guessing you didn't read my follow-up posts. It is ridiculous NOT to start planning for a withdrawal. Are we going to stay there forever? I don't think so. Do we need to find a way out? Of course. Does that mean giving up? No way.

Discussing the process for withdrawal doesn't necessarily mean just leaving; it can easily mean increasing the forces there to finally end the situation right. We are close to a new Vietnam, but we still have a chance to pull our fat out of the fire. But to do that, plans have to be made and discussions have to start now.

What is worse, Al-Qaeda thinking it has gained the upper hand or alienating US popular opinion, ignoring the need to at least start discussing withdrawal, and actually giving Al-Qaeda the upper hand.

[Recyclerz]

I think you're over-reacting and mis-reading the quote the Pentagon made. What they said is valid and legitimate. It is mathematically and politically obvious to the simplest degree that any official plans for the U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq would boost Al Qaeda (i.e. enemy) morale. The Pentagon was NOT calling her an Al Qaeda sympathizer nor was it implying she was a pro-Terrorist. It merely said her actions would bolster Al Qaeda and terrorist morale in general- because a withdrawal, like it or not Libby Dems, is an official military admission of defeat. Like it always is. It IS Vietnam already by the way Matt, in case you didn't notice... and the only way out of Vietnam was to lose Vietnam, i.e. withdraw from Vietnam.

I have to disagree on your first two points. The only way al-Qaeda wins this epic battle (which it isn't really) is to have the US blunder into an ill-advised war to remake the nature of the Arab/Islamic world, get bogged down in fighting an insurgent war, have the war cause more chaos that we can control and lose any credibility the US has both as a close to omnipotent military superpower and as the world leader on the diplomatic front. There's no way they can pull that off, right?

Al-Qaeda are like the bugs in that Men in Black movie; the only way they could ever gain power is to create utter chaos in a local area then take power with a small group of partisans after the populace gets tired of the anarchy and will back anyone who can create some semblance of order. (See Ban, Tali)

The Neo-Cons and their dupes have been utterly wrong by calling this "War on Terror" a generational struggle similar to Battling the Nazis or the Cold War with the Commies. Both of those enemies did have the potential to take over the world. By contrast, "Islamic Fascists" to use the term the Neo-Cons seem to have abandonded, are a bunch of small-time thugs with an idiotic, Luddite world view that would only be appealing to a wide swath of people if the only alternatives were total chaos or an endless occupation by foreign powers.

By invading Iraq on a whim, we were set up to lose (if you accept the Neo-Cons premise) from the start. No Western power has really "won" against an insurgency in a "third world" nation in a hundred years. Unless you're fighting an organized army or you invade with a plan to stay 1000 years or so, you're going to lose. What that guy in the Pentagon and the Republican spin meisters are trying to do (and the letter to Hilary was a part of this) is to pre-explain the eventual withdrawal from Iraq like this: "We were just about to start winning in Iraq when the damn Defeatocrats decided to cut and run. They're pussies." The sad thing is that if that meme is repeated, and reported by the brain-dead mainstream media, often enough it will become the common point of view.

[Yerdaddy]

i'm not defending bush. don't think you can find that in my post. wasn't gore an army journalist? that's also not an attack on him, but it's a stretch to say he fought. that's all.

Am I crazy or do you spend alot of time nitpicking my posts lately? Why can't you be more like CCC and worship me as a god? It's less time consuming and I even hand out prizes when I appear on taco shells and dogs' ass-fur. Give it a shot.

He served as an engineer for four months in Vietnam. I don't know. I'm not going to go up to any military engineers who served in country during a war and say they didn't "fight" in the war. But that's me. I'm kind of a pussy.

[sailor]

Am I crazy or do you spend alot of time nitpicking my posts lately? Why can't you be more like CCC and worship me as a god? It's less time consuming and I even hand out prizes when I appear on taco shells and dogs' ass-fur. Give it a shot.

He served as an engineer for four months in Vietnam. I don't know. I'm not going to go up to any military engineers who served in country during a war and say they didn't "fight" in the war. But that's me. I'm kind of a pussy.

i hold you to a higher standard. it's an honor. be honored.

and i misread his bio. just saw the journalism, missed the engineer part. my bad. happy? :)

[Yerdaddy]

i hold you to a higher standard. it's an honor. be honored.

Isn't this a line from an old Hebrew National hot dog commerical? Yeah, OK then I'm honored, but I'd be more honored if you'd have put your peanut butter in my chocolate and called me a Pepper too.

Damn you AJ for telling me to think of my penis photos from Bali! Now I'm Blowjobman's sidekick, Spunkboy! Sonofabitch!

and i misread his bio. just saw the journalism, missed the engineer part. my bad. happy? :)

I was until my time ran out after you posted and I had to go get another 10 Baht coin just to say I was happy. It's 4am here! But any minute the hookers will be half price so then I'll be happy. And the bad will be all mine.

:)

[sailor]

Isn't this a line from an old Hebrew National hot dog commerical? Yeah, OK then I'm honored, but I'd be more honored if you'd have put your peanut butter in my chocolate and called me a Pepper too.

Damn you AJ for telling me to think of my penis photos from Bali! Now I'm Blowjobman's sidekick, Spunkboy! Sonofabitch!



I was until my time ran out after you posted and I had to go get another 10 Baht coin just to say I was happy. It's 4am here! But any minute the hookers will be half price so then I'll be happy. And the bad will be all mine.

:)

say hi to lordjezo and the rest of the ladyboys!

[HBox]

i hold you to a higher standard. it's an honor. be honored.

and i misread his bio. just saw the journalism, missed the engineer part. my bad. happy? :)

None of us are happy anymore. You've ruined the jovial mood of the thread with your negativity Norman Nitpicker and I'll never forgive you for it.

[Crispy123]

say hi to lordjezo and the rest of the ladyboys!

http://westgroup.biology.ed.ac.uk/pics/ladyboys-brian.jpg

[scottinnj]

But how do ladyboys get such big tits?

[Yerdaddy]

But how do ladyboys get such big tits?

10% inspiration and 90% ejaculation.

[A.J.]

Damn you AJ for telling me to think of my penis photos from Bali! Now I'm Blowjobman's sidekick, Spunkboy! Sonofabitch!

"Holy ejaculate, Yerdaddy!"

[MadMatt]

There he is in the middle...
http://westgroup.biology.ed.ac.uk/pics/ladyboys-brian.jpg

I like the gold and black motif, but why did Lordjezo go with a strapless dress? And that eye makeup and "80's hair" are waaaaay over the top!

:lol:

j/k

[Yerdaddy]

Here's the reason we're doomed as a nation: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19375611/site/newsweek/)June 23, 2007 Newsweek poll:

6. Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?

Yes = 41%
No = 50
Don't Know = 9

[scottinnj]

Here's the reason we're doomed as a nation: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19375611/site/newsweek/)June 23, 2007 Newsweek poll:

The funny part about that poll is that 25% were Republicans, 35% were Democrats, and 34% were "Independent" So it looks like many Democrats still believe that as well.

[Yerdaddy]

The funny part about that poll is that 25% were Republicans, 35% were Democrats, and 34% were "Independent" So it looks like many Democrats still believe that as well.

I imagine most of that is coming from Republicans and the independents. I've seen the numbers of people who identify themselves as Republican switching to independent in these polls.