( OT) Help your president
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message

Yep as I recall the "plan?" was that our guys would be greated with
food
and flowers -- Bushes wet dream

No, that's not, and never was, "the plan". That's a high-school level
attempt at clever snideness. And it doesn't work.

OK -- Since YOU seem to be privy to "THE PLAN" -- educate us as to Just what
it was/is please.




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...on_go_ot/sept_
11_cia_warnings&cid=513&ncid=716

Excerpt:
The CIA warned as early as 1995

Two or three generic warnings, several years ago and some years apart,
that
some or particular muslim terrorists might, at some time or other, want to
attack highly symbolic American targets, or hijack American airplanes,
does
*not* constitute "...repeated warnings of an imminent al Qaeda attack...".
That level of prescience can be had at any working-man's breakfast coffee
shop.

Umnnnnn -- lots more than 2-3 -- sometimes more than that per day -- didn't
you watch Fr. Rice?




3. Telling the American people that Iraq definitely possessed WMD,
26.34%

Iraq *did* possess B & C weapons, and *did* have a nuclear program
aborning.

All past tense.

So what? The last best intelligence is all anyone can go by. We know
they
had them. We know they used them. These are documented facts, and they
are
incontrovertible.

We knew he had them because we sold them to him (wonder if the check was
good?) He was ordered to get rid of them, and all evidence to date indicates
that he did


You forgot #5
5. Disparaging Army Gen. Eric K. Shinseki when he said more troops would
be needed in Iraq, 1.71%

I didn't forget, I ignored. Less than 2% thought it was a big mistake,
and
I agree. Shinseki shouldn't have publicly dissed his boss, and W
shouldn't
have publicly dealt with it.


So now he (bush) has extended to duty of 20,000 troops

Shinseki had a 50% chance of being right. No one really knew. Remember
Winston Churchill's quote.

Shinseki was in the field risking his ass -- Bush was probably golfing or
fishing or something. Who has a better picture?

last item. in future, please respond on the NG only.

( OT) Help your president
 

John Gaquin wrote:

That's a high-school level
attempt at clever snideness. And it doesn't work.

Didn't work for you 4 days ago in this same thread.
You must have missed the second link in the original post.

Help him remember by voting here.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=45639

--
__________m___~¿Ô___m____________________________

( OT) Help your president
 

"Jim" wrote in message news:cfEgc.2026

OK -- Since YOU seem to be privy to "THE PLAN" -- educate us as to Just
what
it was/is please.

I never said I was privy to any plan. I merely pointed out that the notion
that an army of 150,000 would have no plan for occupying captured territory
is ludicrous on its face, notwithstanding what you read in The Guardian.
The fact that a plan is not working is not prima facie evidence that no plan
exists.

( OT) Help your president
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message news:cfEgc.2026

OK -- Since YOU seem to be privy to "THE PLAN" -- educate us as to Just
what
it was/is please.

I never said I was privy to any plan. I merely pointed out that the
notion
that an army of 150,000 would have no plan for occupying captured
territory
is ludicrous on its face, notwithstanding what you read in The Guardian.
The fact that a plan is not working is not prima facie evidence that no
plan
exists.


So if I understand you, There was a plan nobody knows what it is, but it's
not working?

Yep -- sounds like Bush

( OT) Help your president
 

"Jim" wrote in message news:Q9Mgc.1907

So if I understand you, There was a plan nobody knows what it is, but it's
not working?


Not *quite* right. Take out your spin, and you have "There was a plan, but
it's
not working". They are improvising and adapting. This is not at all
unusual in combat. Most often it is the norm.

( OT) Help your president
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message news:Q9Mgc.1907

So if I understand you, There was a plan nobody knows what it is, but
it's
not working?


Not *quite* right. Take out your spin, and you have "There was a plan,
but
it's
not working". They are improvising and adapting. This is not at all
unusual in combat. Most often it is the norm.

" improvising and adapting" -- Isn't that what you do when there is no plan?

( OT) Help your president
 

You guys should put a poll together,,, ask if the net lives saved so far
justifies Bush's agenda? Ask if the figure 40,000 lives murdered each year
(on average) that has stopped is something that Bush might have thought
about.
Because you morons would have criticized Bush had he done nothing and the
40,000 lives lost every year (on average) in Iraq would have continued.
Do you morons believe that the Iraqi lives are not worth saving? Because you
seem to have a problem with this "unexpected""" benefit that seems to have
just happened without thought.....

GYHAS







"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:c5us59


What was that plan? Oh...our troops would be met with gifts of flowers
and virgins, or some nonsense.


There were no "...repeated warnings of an imminent al Qaeda attack
before
9/11..."


Hehehe. Ignoring everything that has been revealed to date, eh? Wait,
there is more to come.


See my response to Jim, above.

( OT) Help your president
 

" Tuuk" wrote in message
...
You guys should put a poll together,,, ask if the net lives saved so far
justifies Bush's agenda? Ask if the figure 40,000 lives murdered each year
(on average) that has stopped is something that Bush might have thought
about.
Because you morons would have criticized Bush had he done nothing and the
40,000 lives lost every year (on average) in Iraq would have continued.
Do you morons believe that the Iraqi lives are not worth saving? Because
you
seem to have a problem with this "unexpected""" benefit that seems to have
just happened without thought.....

GYHAS


From an earlier post

8,875 to 10,725. The minimum and maximum estimates of the number of Iraqi
civilians killed in Iraq so far,

3,466. The total of American soldiers wounded in action in Iraq through
April 17, 2004,

793. Total coalition soldiers killed in Iraq since the war began,

600. The number of people killed during the current siege of Fallujah

110. The number of coalition soldiers killed in November 2003

92. The number of coalition soldiers (65 Americans and 27 Brits) killed in
March 2003

91. The number of coalition soldiers killed in April 2004,

Also which of your numbers are we to believe -- in one instance you say

"Ask if the figure 40,000 lives murdered each year (on average) that has
stopped is something that Bush might have thought about."

In another

"
"Do you know that the net lives saved so far is approximately 30,000 lives?"

And to answer your question -- NO, I DON"T think Bush thought about it. I
doubt Bush does much thinking at all.
"

( OT) Help your president
 

" Tuuk" wrote
You guys should put a poll together,,, ask if the net lives saved so far
justifies Bush's agenda? Ask if the figure 40,000 lives murdered each year
(on average) that has stopped is something that Bush might have thought
about.
Because you morons would have criticized Bush had he done nothing and the
40,000 lives lost every year (on average) in Iraq would have continued.
Do you morons believe that the Iraqi lives are not worth saving? Because
you
seem to have a problem with this "unexpected""" benefit that seems to have
just happened without thought.....

Are you talking about the lives lost due to the US embargo on Iraq?
If so, maybe you can tell us if the embargo is still enacted?

( OT) Help your president
 

Come on,,, get with the program








"Don" wrote in message
...
" Tuuk" wrote
You guys should put a poll together,,, ask if the net lives saved so far
justifies Bush's agenda? Ask if the figure 40,000 lives murdered each
year
(on average) that has stopped is something that Bush might have thought
about.
Because you morons would have criticized Bush had he done nothing and
the
40,000 lives lost every year (on average) in Iraq would have continued.
Do you morons believe that the Iraqi lives are not worth saving? Because
you
seem to have a problem with this "unexpected""" benefit that seems to
have
just happened without thought.....

Are you talking about the lives lost due to the US embargo on Iraq?
If so, maybe you can tell us if the embargo is still enacted?