| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
Don't Play Politics on Iraq
By Jim Marshall Wednesday, October 1, 2003; Page A23 My first trip to a combat zone occurred in 1969. I was a 21-year-old staff sergeant, naive as hell, a freshly trained Army Ranger who had left Princeton University to volunteer for ground combat in Vietnam. I vividly recall feeling way out of step with my Ivy League colleagues. Well, that same out-of-step feeling is back. But this time it's about Iraq and involves some of my professional colleagues, political leaders and activists who are carelessly using words and phrases such as "quagmire," "our failure in Iraq," "this is just another Vietnam," or "the Bush administration has no plan." I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve for myself the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality. Our news coverage disproportionately dwells on the deaths, mistakes and setbacks suffered by coalition forces. Some will attribute this to a grand left-wing conspiracy, but a more plausible explanation is simply the tendency of our news media to focus on bad news. It sells. Few Americans think local news coverage fairly captures the essence of daily life and progress in their hometowns. Coverage from Iraq is no different. Falsely bleak Iraq news circulating in the United States is a serious problem for coalition forces because it discourages Iraqi cooperation, the key to our ultimate success or failure, a daily determinant of life or death for American soldiers. As one example, coalition forces are now discovering nearly 50 percent of the improvised explosive devices through tips. Guess how they discover the rest. We not only need Iraqi tips and intelligence, we need Iraqis fighting by our side and eventually assuming full responsibility for their internal security. But Iraqis have not forgotten the 1991 Gulf War. America encouraged the Shiites to rebel, then abandoned them to be slaughtered. I visited one of the mass graves, mute testimony to the wisdom of being cautious about relying on American politicians to live up to their commitments. For Iraqis, news of America's resolve is critical to any decision to cooperate with coalition forces, a decision that can lead to death. Newspaper start-up ventures and sales of satellite dishes absolutely exploded following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. With this on top of the Internet, Iraqis do get the picture from America -- literally. Many in Washington view the contest for the presidency and control of Congress as a zero-sum game without external costs or benefits. Politicians and activists in each party reflexively celebrate, spread and embellish news that is bad for the opposition. But to do that now with regard to Iraq harms our troops and our effort. Concerning Iraq, this normal political tripe can impose a heavy external cost. It is too soon to determine whether Iraqis will step forward to secure their own freedom. For now, responsible Democrats should carefully avoid using the language of failure. It is false. It endangers our troops and our effort. It can be unforgivably self-fulfilling. Democratic candidates for the presidency should repeatedly hammer home their support, if elected, for helping the Iraqi people secure their own freedom. It is fine for each to contend that he or she is a better choice for securing victory in Iraq. But in making this argument, care should be taken not to dwell on perceived failures of the current team or plan. Americans, with help from commentators and others, will decide this for themselves. Instead of being negative about Iraq, Democratic presidential candidates should emphasize the positive aspects of their own plans for Iraq. Save the negative attacks for the issues of jobs and the economy. Iraqis are far less likely to support the coalition effort if they think America might withdraw following the 2004 election. Finally, no better signal of our commitment to this effort could currently be provided than for Congress to quickly approve, with little dissent or dithering, the president's request for an additional $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course no one wants to spend such a sum. But it is well worth it if it leads to a stable, secular representative government in Iraq, something that could immeasurably improve our future national security. The writer is a Democratic representative from Georgia. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"NOYB" wrote in message
om... Don't Play Politics on Iraq By Jim Marshall Wednesday, October 1, 2003; Page A23 The writer is a Democratic representative from Georgia. Friend of Zell Miller? |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
Good going Rep Marshall.
He also said in another story: "Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical "can do" attitude and ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small reconstruction projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. Through decentralized decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne Division alone has spent nearly $23 million in just the past few months. This sum goes a very long way in Iraq. Hundreds upon hundreds of schools are being renovated, repainted, replumbed and reroofed. Imagine the effect that has on children and their parents. Zogby International recently released the results of an August poll showing hope and progress. My own unscientific surveys told me the same thing. With virtually no exceptions, hundreds of Iraqis enthusiastically waved back at me as I sat in the open door of a helicopter traveling between Babylon and Baghdad. And I received a similar reception as I worked my way alone, shaking hands through a large crowd of refinery workers just to see their reaction. We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops." http://jeffbrokaw.net/misc/USRepJimMarshall.html NOYB: Do you have a link to your story? Thanks "NOYB" wrote in message om... Don't Play Politics on Iraq By Jim Marshall Wednesday, October 1, 2003; Page A23 My first trip to a combat zone occurred in 1969. I was a 21-year-old staff sergeant, naive as hell, a freshly trained Army Ranger who had left Princeton University to volunteer for ground combat in Vietnam. I vividly recall feeling way out of step with my Ivy League colleagues. Well, that same out-of-step feeling is back. But this time it's about Iraq and involves some of my professional colleagues, political leaders and activists who are carelessly using words and phrases such as "quagmire," "our failure in Iraq," "this is just another Vietnam," or "the Bush administration has no plan." I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve for myself the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality. Our news coverage disproportionately dwells on the deaths, mistakes and setbacks suffered by coalition forces. Some will attribute this to a grand left-wing conspiracy, but a more plausible explanation is simply the tendency of our news media to focus on bad news. It sells. Few Americans think local news coverage fairly captures the essence of daily life and progress in their hometowns. Coverage from Iraq is no different. Falsely bleak Iraq news circulating in the United States is a serious problem for coalition forces because it discourages Iraqi cooperation, the key to our ultimate success or failure, a daily determinant of life or death for American soldiers. As one example, coalition forces are now discovering nearly 50 percent of the improvised explosive devices through tips. Guess how they discover the rest. We not only need Iraqi tips and intelligence, we need Iraqis fighting by our side and eventually assuming full responsibility for their internal security. But Iraqis have not forgotten the 1991 Gulf War. America encouraged the Shiites to rebel, then abandoned them to be slaughtered. I visited one of the mass graves, mute testimony to the wisdom of being cautious about relying on American politicians to live up to their commitments. For Iraqis, news of America's resolve is critical to any decision to cooperate with coalition forces, a decision that can lead to death. Newspaper start-up ventures and sales of satellite dishes absolutely exploded following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. With this on top of the Internet, Iraqis do get the picture from America -- literally. Many in Washington view the contest for the presidency and control of Congress as a zero-sum game without external costs or benefits. Politicians and activists in each party reflexively celebrate, spread and embellish news that is bad for the opposition. But to do that now with regard to Iraq harms our troops and our effort. Concerning Iraq, this normal political tripe can impose a heavy external cost. It is too soon to determine whether Iraqis will step forward to secure their own freedom. For now, responsible Democrats should carefully avoid using the language of failure. It is false. It endangers our troops and our effort. It can be unforgivably self-fulfilling. Democratic candidates for the presidency should repeatedly hammer home their support, if elected, for helping the Iraqi people secure their own freedom. It is fine for each to contend that he or she is a better choice for securing victory in Iraq. But in making this argument, care should be taken not to dwell on perceived failures of the current team or plan. Americans, with help from commentators and others, will decide this for themselves. Instead of being negative about Iraq, Democratic presidential candidates should emphasize the positive aspects of their own plans for Iraq. Save the negative attacks for the issues of jobs and the economy. Iraqis are far less likely to support the coalition effort if they think America might withdraw following the 2004 election. Finally, no better signal of our commitment to this effort could currently be provided than for Congress to quickly approve, with little dissent or dithering, the president's request for an additional $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course no one wants to spend such a sum. But it is well worth it if it leads to a stable, secular representative government in Iraq, something that could immeasurably improve our future national security. The writer is a Democratic representative from Georgia. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
Never mind, found it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep30.html "Jim -" wrote in message news:nFzeb.473610$Oz4.299780@rwcrnsc54... Good going Rep Marshall. He also said in another story: "Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical "can do" attitude and ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small reconstruction projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. Through decentralized decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne Division alone has spent nearly $23 million in just the past few months. This sum goes a very long way in Iraq. Hundreds upon hundreds of schools are being renovated, repainted, replumbed and reroofed. Imagine the effect that has on children and their parents. Zogby International recently released the results of an August poll showing hope and progress. My own unscientific surveys told me the same thing. With virtually no exceptions, hundreds of Iraqis enthusiastically waved back at me as I sat in the open door of a helicopter traveling between Babylon and Baghdad. And I received a similar reception as I worked my way alone, shaking hands through a large crowd of refinery workers just to see their reaction. We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops." http://jeffbrokaw.net/misc/USRepJimMarshall.html NOYB: Do you have a link to your story? Thanks "NOYB" wrote in message om... Don't Play Politics on Iraq By Jim Marshall Wednesday, October 1, 2003; Page A23 My first trip to a combat zone occurred in 1969. I was a 21-year-old staff sergeant, naive as hell, a freshly trained Army Ranger who had left Princeton University to volunteer for ground combat in Vietnam. I vividly recall feeling way out of step with my Ivy League colleagues. Well, that same out-of-step feeling is back. But this time it's about Iraq and involves some of my professional colleagues, political leaders and activists who are carelessly using words and phrases such as "quagmire," "our failure in Iraq," "this is just another Vietnam," or "the Bush administration has no plan." I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve for myself the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality. Our news coverage disproportionately dwells on the deaths, mistakes and setbacks suffered by coalition forces. Some will attribute this to a grand left-wing conspiracy, but a more plausible explanation is simply the tendency of our news media to focus on bad news. It sells. Few Americans think local news coverage fairly captures the essence of daily life and progress in their hometowns. Coverage from Iraq is no different. Falsely bleak Iraq news circulating in the United States is a serious problem for coalition forces because it discourages Iraqi cooperation, the key to our ultimate success or failure, a daily determinant of life or death for American soldiers. As one example, coalition forces are now discovering nearly 50 percent of the improvised explosive devices through tips. Guess how they discover the rest. We not only need Iraqi tips and intelligence, we need Iraqis fighting by our side and eventually assuming full responsibility for their internal security. But Iraqis have not forgotten the 1991 Gulf War. America encouraged the Shiites to rebel, then abandoned them to be slaughtered. I visited one of the mass graves, mute testimony to the wisdom of being cautious about relying on American politicians to live up to their commitments. For Iraqis, news of America's resolve is critical to any decision to cooperate with coalition forces, a decision that can lead to death. Newspaper start-up ventures and sales of satellite dishes absolutely exploded following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. With this on top of the Internet, Iraqis do get the picture from America -- literally. Many in Washington view the contest for the presidency and control of Congress as a zero-sum game without external costs or benefits. Politicians and activists in each party reflexively celebrate, spread and embellish news that is bad for the opposition. But to do that now with regard to Iraq harms our troops and our effort. Concerning Iraq, this normal political tripe can impose a heavy external cost. It is too soon to determine whether Iraqis will step forward to secure their own freedom. For now, responsible Democrats should carefully avoid using the language of failure. It is false. It endangers our troops and our effort. It can be unforgivably self-fulfilling. Democratic candidates for the presidency should repeatedly hammer home their support, if elected, for helping the Iraqi people secure their own freedom. It is fine for each to contend that he or she is a better choice for securing victory in Iraq. But in making this argument, care should be taken not to dwell on perceived failures of the current team or plan. Americans, with help from commentators and others, will decide this for themselves. Instead of being negative about Iraq, Democratic presidential candidates should emphasize the positive aspects of their own plans for Iraq. Save the negative attacks for the issues of jobs and the economy. Iraqis are far less likely to support the coalition effort if they think America might withdraw following the 2004 election. Finally, no better signal of our commitment to this effort could currently be provided than for Congress to quickly approve, with little dissent or dithering, the president's request for an additional $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course no one wants to spend such a sum. But it is well worth it if it leads to a stable, secular representative government in Iraq, something that could immeasurably improve our future national security. The writer is a Democratic representative from Georgia. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by a
Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the story harder for liberals to attack. According to Marshall: "I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve for myself the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality." --------------------------------------------------------- The Democrats lie about Iraq. They lie about the economy. They lie about blow jobs. The dismissive cry that "it was just a lie about a blow job" doesn't address the fact that that lie was indicative of their party's character...or lack of character. It's fitting that Wesley Clark is running for their party's nomination now. According to former Joint Chief of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton, Clark lacks "integrity and character". He sounds like the perfect Democrat. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"NOYB" wrote in message
.net... I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by a Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the story harder for liberals to attack. According to Marshall: "I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve for myself the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality." He went to Iraq for a visit. I don't expect Marshall was in the streets in the same way a reporter can blend in. He was likely with an entourage wearing western clothes and being whisked around by Americans. Most of the people reporting on Iraq LIVE THERE. They're in the news business which begs another question. Why is the news coming out of Iraq mostly negative? Does bad news sell better than good news? Perhaps so, if you listen to Michael Moore who concludes that the media feeds on situations that create fear. Fear is the thing that sells best. Just like Bush pumping us with fear about what might happen unless we go bomb the **** out of a fifth rate military that doesn't have any WMDs. You see, it cuts both ways. Bush sells fear, so does the media. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"jps" wrote in message ... Fear is the thing that sells best. Just like Bush pumping us with fear about what might happen unless we go bomb the **** out of a fifth rate military that doesn't have any WMDs. You see, it cuts both ways. Bush sells fear, so does the media. Nice. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
NOYB wrote:
I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by a Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the story harder for liberals to attack. The only reason we are in Iraq is because the Bush-shippers thought it would prop their boy up in the polls. Politics. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by a Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the story harder for liberals to attack. The only reason we are in Iraq is because the Bush-shippers thought it would prop their boy up in the polls. Politics. Just like the Libs want the Wilson-Novak investigation to prop their boys up. Partisan politics. A witch hunt. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
Jim - wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by a Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the story harder for liberals to attack. The only reason we are in Iraq is because the Bush-shippers thought it would prop their boy up in the polls. Politics. Just like the Libs want the Wilson-Novak investigation to prop their boys up. Partisan politics. A witch hunt. No need to hunt for the witch. It's a warlock, and his name is Karl. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 09:52:27 -0700, "jps" wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message k.net... I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by a Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the story harder for liberals to attack. According to Marshall: "I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve for myself the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality." He went to Iraq for a visit. I don't expect Marshall was in the streets in the same way a reporter can blend in. He was likely with an entourage wearing western clothes and being whisked around by Americans. Most of the people reporting on Iraq LIVE THERE. They're in the news business which begs another question. Why is the news coming out of Iraq mostly negative? Does bad news sell better than good news? Perhaps so, if you listen to Michael Moore who concludes that the media feeds on situations that create fear. Fear is the thing that sells best. Just like Bush pumping us with fear about what might happen unless we go bomb the **** out of a fifth rate military that doesn't have any WMDs. You see, it cuts both ways. Bush sells fear, so does the media. Answered your own question, didn't you? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:52:42 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: NOYB wrote: I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by a Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the story harder for liberals to attack. The only reason we are in Iraq is because the Bush-shippers thought it would prop their boy up in the polls. Politics. I thought y'all were saying it was, "Oil, oil, oil." John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"JohnH" wrote in message
... On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:52:42 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: NOYB wrote: I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by a Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the story harder for liberals to attack. The only reason we are in Iraq is because the Bush-shippers thought it would prop their boy up in the polls. Politics. I thought y'all were saying it was, "Oil, oil, oil." Harry always said it was to prop up the Chickenhawkinchief. I was the one screaming about oil. Operation Iraqi Liberation Now that the world community is watching, the chickenhawks are having a hard time explaining why we should make them pay for repairs we caused. Another major miscalculation by the neocons. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
jps wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:52:42 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: NOYB wrote: I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by a Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the story harder for liberals to attack. The only reason we are in Iraq is because the Bush-shippers thought it would prop their boy up in the polls. Politics. I thought y'all were saying it was, "Oil, oil, oil." Harry always said it was to prop up the Chickenhawkinchief. I was the one screaming about oil. Operation Iraqi Liberation Now that the world community is watching, the chickenhawks are having a hard time explaining why we should make them pay for repairs we caused. Another major miscalculation by the neocons. Indeed, we bombed Iraq to smithereens and have to date found no significant amounts of evidence to back up our "justification" for the invasion. Why should the Iraqis pay for the stupidity and deceit of George W. Bush? -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:24:35 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Indeed, we bombed Iraq to smithereens and have to date found no significant amounts of evidence to back up our "justification" for the invasion. Why should the Iraqis pay for the stupidity and deceit of George W. Bush? Because Rush said so? bb |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"JohnH" wrote in message
... Answered your own question, didn't you? If that's our system, then don't bitch when Bush's fear mongering slaps the Republicans in the face. Double edged sword. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:32:44 -0700, "jps" wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:52:42 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: NOYB wrote: I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by a Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the story harder for liberals to attack. The only reason we are in Iraq is because the Bush-shippers thought it would prop their boy up in the polls. Politics. I thought y'all were saying it was, "Oil, oil, oil." Harry always said it was to prop up the Chickenhawkinchief. I was the one screaming about oil. Operation Iraqi Liberation Now that the world community is watching, the chickenhawks are having a hard time explaining why we should make them pay for repairs we caused. Another major miscalculation by the neocons. Seems like I mentioned the watchful eyes of the world community several months ago. Didn't seem to change your rhetoric any then. The way the Dems are screaming for money from Iraqi oil, after screaming that Bush was doing this only for oil (as were you, jcs), I can't see how the whole mess of cirrhotic liverals can stand to see themselves in the mirror. Is that why Kennedy's hair looks worse every day? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:24:35 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Indeed, we bombed Iraq to smithereens and have to date found no significant amounts of evidence to back up our "justification" for the invasion. Why should the Iraqis pay for the stupidity and deceit of George W. Bush? "We bombed Iraq to smithereens..." Did you mean to say that, Harry? Even the CL's on the hill don't make such blithely ignorant statements. This was the most "collateral damage free" war that ever was! John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"JohnH" wrote in message
... The way the Dems are screaming for money from Iraqi oil, after screaming that Bush was doing this only for oil (as were you, jcs), I can't see how the whole mess of cirrhotic liverals can stand to see themselves in the mirror. Is that why Kennedy's hair looks worse every day? Yes, yes, John. You bet. It was a humanitarian mission all along and oil had nothing to do with it. Right. It's a bad plan gone bad. No matter how much you attempt to piece it back together into something that doesn't look like an preemptive, arrogant unsupportable disaster, the more foolish you all look. Wolfowitz was predicting Iraq would pay for its own rebuilding with oil money. Bush didn't want to wait for a coalition to form because he wanted to commandeer the situation. They just didn't calculate real good. Guess who's going to pay for it? That's right, you and me. How much do you think those tax cuts are worth now? -$% Spin away Mr. No Spin. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:08:22 -0700, "jps" wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message .. . The way the Dems are screaming for money from Iraqi oil, after screaming that Bush was doing this only for oil (as were you, jcs), I can't see how the whole mess of cirrhotic liverals can stand to see themselves in the mirror. Is that why Kennedy's hair looks worse every day? Yes, yes, John. You bet. It was a humanitarian mission all along and oil had nothing to do with it. Right. It's a bad plan gone bad. No matter how much you attempt to piece it back together into something that doesn't look like an preemptive, arrogant unsupportable disaster, the more foolish you all look. Wolfowitz was predicting Iraq would pay for its own rebuilding with oil money. Bush didn't want to wait for a coalition to form because he wanted to commandeer the situation. They just didn't calculate real good. Guess who's going to pay for it? That's right, you and me. How much do you think those tax cuts are worth now? -$% Spin away Mr. No Spin. In other words, you were wrong. Sarcasm doesn't change facts. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
Yeah but, .......................... breast milk is best served at 98.6
degrees. "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:08:22 -0700, "jps" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . The way the Dems are screaming for money from Iraqi oil, after screaming that Bush was doing this only for oil (as were you, jcs), I can't see how the whole mess of cirrhotic liverals can stand to see themselves in the mirror. Is that why Kennedy's hair looks worse every day? Yes, yes, John. You bet. It was a humanitarian mission all along and oil had nothing to do with it. Right. It's a bad plan gone bad. No matter how much you attempt to piece it back together into something that doesn't look like an preemptive, arrogant unsupportable disaster, the more foolish you all look. Wolfowitz was predicting Iraq would pay for its own rebuilding with oil money. Bush didn't want to wait for a coalition to form because he wanted to commandeer the situation. They just didn't calculate real good. Guess who's going to pay for it? That's right, you and me. How much do you think those tax cuts are worth now? -$% Spin away Mr. No Spin. In other words, you were wrong. Sarcasm doesn't change facts. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"JohnH" wrote in message
... In other words, you were wrong. Sarcasm doesn't change facts. I was wrong about what? You don't think we'd be controlling their oil business if this hadn't gone so poorly? Are you some kind of whaco polyanna? They didn't have a freakin' plan, they thought we'd be welcomed with open arms, we thought their oil production capabilities were in better shape, we thought their infrastructure was in better shape, we thought they had WMDs, we thought they were trying to build a NOOKULAR capacity, we thought we'd kick their entire security infrastructure out, we thought they could exist without jobs.... This all adds up to a bunch of illogical assumptions. Are you saying that it's equally illogical to assume that the Bush Admin. planned on controlling their oil production? With all the stupid assumptions they made, what makes this one so much less logical????? Get with it John. We elected an ideological fool and he installed his band of like minded fools to run the country and squander our resources. How much is that tax cut worth to you now, sucker???? |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
If you believe that Bush is not a good president, what are you doing
productive to get you candidate elected? I hope you don't think you are making a difference with your posts in rec.boats? "jps" wrote in message ... "JohnH" wrote in message ... In other words, you were wrong. Sarcasm doesn't change facts. I was wrong about what? You don't think we'd be controlling their oil business if this hadn't gone so poorly? Are you some kind of whaco polyanna? They didn't have a freakin' plan, they thought we'd be welcomed with open arms, we thought their oil production capabilities were in better shape, we thought their infrastructure was in better shape, we thought they had WMDs, we thought they were trying to build a NOOKULAR capacity, we thought we'd kick their entire security infrastructure out, we thought they could exist without jobs.... This all adds up to a bunch of illogical assumptions. Are you saying that it's equally illogical to assume that the Bush Admin. planned on controlling their oil production? With all the stupid assumptions they made, what makes this one so much less logical????? Get with it John. We elected an ideological fool and he installed his band of like minded fools to run the country and squander our resources. How much is that tax cut worth to you now, sucker???? |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:24:35 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Indeed, we bombed Iraq to smithereens and have to date found no significant amounts of evidence to back up our "justification" for the invasion. Why should the Iraqis pay for the stupidity and deceit of George W. Bush? "We bombed Iraq to smithereens..." Did you mean to say that, Harry? Even the CL's on the hill don't make such blithely ignorant statements. This was the most "collateral damage free" war that ever was! John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD You must be inhaling your boat's exhaust fumes. We've destroyed all sorts of infrastructure in Iraq, bridges, roads, airports, plus dozens and dozens of significant buildings. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:56:50 -0700, "jps" wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message .. . In other words, you were wrong. Sarcasm doesn't change facts. I was wrong about what? You don't think we'd be controlling their oil business if this hadn't gone so poorly? Are you some kind of whaco polyanna? They didn't have a freakin' plan, they thought we'd be welcomed with open arms, we thought their oil production capabilities were in better shape, we thought their infrastructure was in better shape, we thought they had WMDs, we thought they were trying to build a NOOKULAR capacity, we thought we'd kick their entire security infrastructure out, we thought they could exist without jobs.... This all adds up to a bunch of illogical assumptions. Are you saying that it's equally illogical to assume that the Bush Admin. planned on controlling their oil production? With all the stupid assumptions they made, what makes this one so much less logical????? Get with it John. We elected an ideological fool and he installed his band of like minded fools to run the country and squander our resources. How much is that tax cut worth to you now, sucker???? Hysteria doesn't work either. Maybe you should just hush. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:05:32 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:24:35 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Indeed, we bombed Iraq to smithereens and have to date found no significant amounts of evidence to back up our "justification" for the invasion. Why should the Iraqis pay for the stupidity and deceit of George W. Bush? "We bombed Iraq to smithereens..." Did you mean to say that, Harry? Even the CL's on the hill don't make such blithely ignorant statements. This was the most "collateral damage free" war that ever was! John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD You must be inhaling your boat's exhaust fumes. We've destroyed all sorts of infrastructure in Iraq, bridges, roads, airports, plus dozens and dozens of significant buildings. Don't know of any significant bridges we destroyed. We destroyed almost no infrastructure. We did destroy several of your buddy's castles. I'm sure you find those terribly significant. 'Course, I could be wrong. If I am, I'm sure you have some facts to support all this supposed infrastructure destruction. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:rM1fb.481822$Oz4.321064@rwcrnsc54... If you believe that Bush is not a good president, what are you doing productive to get you candidate elected? I hope you don't think you are making a difference with your posts in rec.boats? My efforts are certainly not restricted to rec.boats. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"JohnH" wrote in message
... On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:56:50 -0700, "jps" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . In other words, you were wrong. Sarcasm doesn't change facts. I was wrong about what? You don't think we'd be controlling their oil business if this hadn't gone so poorly? Are you some kind of whaco polyanna? They didn't have a freakin' plan, they thought we'd be welcomed with open arms, we thought their oil production capabilities were in better shape, we thought their infrastructure was in better shape, we thought they had WMDs, we thought they were trying to build a NOOKULAR capacity, we thought we'd kick their entire security infrastructure out, we thought they could exist without jobs.... This all adds up to a bunch of illogical assumptions. Are you saying that it's equally illogical to assume that the Bush Admin. planned on controlling their oil production? With all the stupid assumptions they made, what makes this one so much less logical????? Get with it John. We elected an ideological fool and he installed his band of like minded fools to run the country and squander our resources. How much is that tax cut worth to you now, sucker???? Hysteria doesn't work either. There's no hysteria here. I've been saying the same **** all along. Bury your head in the sand up to your ass if that what makes you comfy. Maybe you should just hush. The only folks who're doin' the hushin' are the ones who got nothin' to say. I don't blame you for being astonished at how badly things turned out. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
attaboy, now you are going in the right direction. So what else are you
doing to get rid of the Bush? "jps" wrote in message ... "Bill Cole" wrote in message news:rM1fb.481822$Oz4.321064@rwcrnsc54... If you believe that Bush is not a good president, what are you doing productive to get you candidate elected? I hope you don't think you are making a difference with your posts in rec.boats? My efforts are certainly not restricted to rec.boats. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:Le5fb.483972$cF.169905@rwcrnsc53... attaboy, now you are going in the right direction. So what else are you doing to get rid of the Bush? Everything I can. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
ah, but nothing you are proud enough to report. I understand.
"jps" wrote in message ... "Bill Cole" wrote in message news:Le5fb.483972$cF.169905@rwcrnsc53... attaboy, now you are going in the right direction. So what else are you doing to get rid of the Bush? Everything I can. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:0u5fb.663636$YN5.511602@sccrnsc01... ah, but nothing you are proud enough to report. I understand. No need to have your approval Bill. Thanks anyway. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"JohnH" wrote in message
... 'Course, I could be wrong. If I am, I'm sure you have some facts to support all this supposed infrastructure destruction. They had electricity and water before we got there. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
JohnH wrote in message
Don't know of any significant bridges we destroyed. We destroyed almost no infrastructure. We did destroy several of your buddy's castles. I'm sure you find those terribly significant. 'Course, I could be wrong. If I am, I'm sure you have some facts to support all this supposed infrastructure destruction. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD I wonder what we hired Haliburton(Cheney) to rebuild infrastructure for, if we didn't destroy any? |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"jps" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message .net... I thought it was especially good given the fact that it was written by a Democratic representative in the Washington Post...which makes the story harder for liberals to attack. According to Marshall: "I went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to resolve for myself the recent contrast between gloomy news coverage and optimistic Pentagon reports of our progress. My trip left no doubt that the Pentagon's version is far closer to reality." He went to Iraq for a visit. I don't expect Marshall was in the streets in the same way a reporter can blend in. He was likely with an entourage wearing western clothes and being whisked around by Americans. Most of the people reporting on Iraq LIVE THERE. They're in the news business which begs another question. Why is the news coming out of Iraq mostly negative? Does bad news sell better than good news? When was the last time you saw a news report about a building that was *not* on fire, filled with asbestos, had a murdur occur in it, etc. Good news just doesn't sell. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"NOYB" wrote in message
... When was the last time you saw a news report about a building that was *not* on fire, filled with asbestos, had a murdur occur in it, etc. Good news just doesn't sell. So don't blame people like Ted Kennedy for being shrill when they need to get their message heard. The medium is the message. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"NOYB" wrote in message
... When was the last time you saw a news report about a building that was *not* on fire, filled with asbestos, had a murdur occur in it, etc. Good news just doesn't sell. Maybe, but some left-wing news organizations have reported a few pockets of small, humanitarian successes in the Middle East. Go figure. These organizations are supposed to be imbalanced. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... When was the last time you saw a news report about a building that was *not* on fire, filled with asbestos, had a murdur occur in it, etc. Good news just doesn't sell. Maybe, but some left-wing news organizations have reported a few pockets of small, humanitarian successes in the Middle East. Go figure. These organizations are supposed to be imbalanced. Just because someone is "left-wing" in their social or fiscal beliefs, doesn't mean they're dishonest and bitterly partisan. You, for instance, strike me as one of those type of people. Gould is *almost* there, and seems to be a little better as of late. He's even given some credit to the signs of an improving economy. Harry, jps, and basskisser are lost causes...Harry and jps, because they're extremely partisan...and basskisser because he's just plain dumb. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
Tune your aural filters to listen for Sam Nunn in the news. He'll be
explaining that your president is wasting billions of dollars in Iraq, hunting for WMDs, while our government really DOES know the whereabouts of several hundred TONS of weapons-grade nuclear material in FRIENDLY countries, and is spending only a fraction of what's necessary to assist those countries in securing said material. Countries like Russia cannot afford to properly secure these materials. We've known this since RayGun left office, and not enough has been done about it. THIS is the true threat to American security, not Iraq. "NOYB" wrote in message .net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... When was the last time you saw a news report about a building that was *not* on fire, filled with asbestos, had a murdur occur in it, etc. Good news just doesn't sell. Maybe, but some left-wing news organizations have reported a few pockets of small, humanitarian successes in the Middle East. Go figure. These organizations are supposed to be imbalanced. Just because someone is "left-wing" in their social or fiscal beliefs, doesn't mean they're dishonest and bitterly partisan. You, for instance, strike me as one of those type of people. Gould is *almost* there, and seems to be a little better as of late. He's even given some credit to the signs of an improving economy. Harry, jps, and basskisser are lost causes...Harry and jps, because they're extremely partisan...and basskisser because he's just plain dumb. |
OT--Don't play politics on Iraq
"NOYB" wrote in message news:eEofb.66880
When was the last time you saw a news report about a building that was *not* on fire, filled with asbestos, had a murdur occur in it, etc. Good news just doesn't sell. That's why there's so much crap in the news about the Chimp in Chief |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:37 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com