OT Rumsfield a JOKE
 

IRAQ
Why Is Rumsfeld Still Around?

Prior to the war against Iraq, the Bush administration claimed that the
conflict would be short and inexpensive. Over two years later, U.S.
troops have sacrificed over 1,700 lives, U.S. taxpayers have spent over
$200 billion on the war, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
appearing on three Sunday morning talk shows this weekend, claims no
mistakes have been made. The lead architect of the failed Iraq policy
stubbornly refused to admit that a change of course was needed. Were
President Bush sincere about his renewed effort this week to offer a
"strategy for success" in Iraq, his first step should be to ask for and
accept Rumsfeld's resignation. RUMSFELD'S ROSY VISION REVISED: On Fox
News Sunday, host Chris Wallace noted that Rumsfeld, from before the
start of the Iraq war, has offered a rosy picture about how the
conflict would turn out, leaving most Americans unprepared for the
violence that has resulted. Rumsfeld responded to the criticism by
saying: "That's false ... I have been very balanced and measured."
Rumsfeld's revisionist history does a grave disservice to all Americans
who believed his and the Defense Department's assertions prior to the
war in Iraq. Fareed Zakaria, commenting on ABC's This Week, said, "On
Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld has been more Orwellian, not truthful."
Despite his best efforts to fashion himself into a "new Rumsfeld," the
"old Rumsfeld" cannot be forgotten. Conservative columnist Bill Kristol
stated the case against Rumsfeld most succinctly: "These soldiers
deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have." Let's review:
Rumsfeld said he knew where the WMD were, he said the conflict would
not last more than six months, he downplayed the initial security
vaccum in Iraq by saying "stuff happens," he asserted that we would be
greeted as liberators in Iraq, he failed to properly equip the troops
for the war, and then he famously said, "you go to war with the Army
you have, not the Army you want."

RUMSFELD'S DICTIONARY: Vice President Cheney, as you will recall,
recently said the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes." His
assertion has since run up against the facts, with recent violence
indicating a strengthening insurgency and the top military commander in
the Persian Gulf directly stating that he disagreed with Cheney. This
of course put Rumsfeld in the difficult position of possibly telling
the truth this Sunday. But he didn't. In a blatant act of dishonesty,
Rumsfeld went on each of the Sunday shows and repeated his talking
point of the day that Cheney's "last throes" comment may have been
accurate if you look up its definition in the dictionary (in essence,
parroting Cheney's own defense of his comments last week). On Fox,
Rumsfeld said, "Last throes could be a violent last throe, just as well
as a placid or calm last throe. Look it up in the dictionary." (After
defending Cheney's comments, Rumsfeld completely contradicted himself,
asserting that the insurgency could last 12 years.) On NBC, he said,
"The last throes could be violence, as you well know from a dictionary
standpoint." And on ABC, he told host George Stephanopoulos to "look it
up." Rumsfeld has frequently turned to the Oxford Dictionary to bail
himself out of difficult situations, such as when he tried to twist
General Abizaid's assertion that Iraq had become a guerrilla war
(Rumsfeld: "I have since gone to the dictionary") or when he defended
his characterization of the war on terror as a long, hard "slog"
(Rumsfeld: "It's not only the Oxford Dictionary's preferred definition,
it's mine"). Rumsfeld's quippy, semantic word-game misses the central
fact that "last throes" comment misleads the American public into
believing that we're on our way out of Iraq.

GITMO RATIONALE BREAKS DOWN IN THE FACE OF TALKS WITH IRAQI INSURGENTS:
Rumsfeld confirmed a report from The London Sunday Times that the U.S.
has been negotiating with Iraqi insurgents. To explain why the U.S. is
now negotiating with the enemy - a stance that President Bush has yet
to publicly confirm - Rumsfeld offered the following response: "If
you think about it, there aren't the good guys and the bad guys over
there. There are people all across the spectrum." This nuanced view of
the enemy is one that escaped Rumsfeld when he devised his scheme to
detain terrorists at the Guantanamo Bay facility. Rumsfeld sees these
detainees in pure black-and-white terms: "They're suicide bombers.
They're terrorists. They're murderers and these are bad people. These
are not good people." If the U.S. can now negotiate with insurgents in
Iraq, why can't we afford basic human rights and due process to
detainees in Guantanamo?

NEW SPIN, SAME AS THE OLD SPIN: The mainstream press continues to
repeat the canard that the White House is changing its message on Iraq.
Secretary Rumsfeld "road-tested" the purportedly new message this
weekend, and it was the rhetorical equivalent of a 1980 Austin
Princess: old, tired, and unreliable. Knight-Ridder laid out the three
major planks of the "new" message: "'Progress is being made politically
and economically' in Iraq; ...And we have never miscalculated, erred,
or misled you." Sound familiar? That's because each of those points -
one and two - have been repeated by the White House for months.

....AND JUST AS FALSE: Take point number one: though it may be true that
Iraq is slowly advancing politically, that progress has occurred
despite the security situation in Iraq for which Secretary Rumsfeld is
accountable, not because of it. Moreover, Iraq's economy is still
decidedly a mixed bag. While many Iraqis are wealthier today than they
were two years ago, "by other measures, like electricity availability
and the unemployment rate, Iraq's economy appears weaker than it was
during the Baathist reign," a Brookings analysis noted this month.

RUMSFELD DEFENDS ROVE'S FALSE SMEAR: Asked whether he was happy with
the way liberals reacted after September 11, Rumsfeld said, "I think
you're talking about Karl Rove, is that what that is? Yeah, it is. I
don't do politics. You know that, Tim." That is, until 10 seconds
later, when Rumsfeld proceeded to repeat Rove's remarks. "I think that
what [Rove] was saying was, look, the point I made earlier, do you want
to treat terrorists with indictments and trials here in the United
States, or do you want to treat terrorists like terrorists, get them
off the battlefield, keep them from killing people, find out everything
you can so you can stop future attacks?" But statements from President
Bush and House leader Tom DeLay, as well as polls taken shortly after
September 11, show this is patently false. Here's one survey, taken
9/13/01-9/14/01, demonstrating startling unanimity across the political
spectrum in the wake of the attacks: "Should the U.S. take military
action against those responsible? Yes: 93% of Republicans, 86% of
Democrats, 76% of independents."

IS RUMSFELD A ROVIAN LIBERAL?: Rumsfeld made a number of stark
observations this weekend that, if spoken from a different mouth, may
have become political fodder for Karl Rove. Rumsfeld said, "We're not
going to win against this insurgency." He later said, "Foreigners don't
defeat insurgencies." Rumsfeld also added the insurgency could go on
for 12 years, and he confirmed that there have been "many" talks with
insurgents. Seems like Rumsfeld is offering "therapy and understanding
for our attackers."

RUMSFELD FORGETS WHETHER HE PREDICTED THE INSURGENCY: Secretary
Rumsfeld yesterday demonstrated a near photographic memory of all the
bad things he told President Bush might happen, but didn't: "I
presented the president a list of about 15 things that could go
terribly, terribly wrong before the war started: the fact that the oil
fields could have been set aflame like they were in Kuwait, the fact
that we could have had mass refugees and dislocations and it didn't
happen, the bridges could have blown up, there could have been a
Fortress Baghdad with a moat around it with oil in it and people
fighting to the death.... So a great many of the bad things that could
have happened did not happen." Rumsfeld can't recall, however, if he
told President Bush that there might be an "robust insurgency": "I
don't remember if that was on there," Rumsfeld told Tim Russert

"Ignoramus20427" wrote in message
...
I would like to ask the conservatives on this board to publicly
apologize for supporting this war.

Go **** yourself.

BTW--I would like to ask the liberals on this board to publicly thank the
President for having the insight to institute a plan that would draw the
terrorists into a central location in the Middle East...so that our properly
armed soldiers can fight them there, instead of civilians getting blown up
over here.

I would like to ask the conservatives on this board to publicly
apologize for supporting this war.


NOYB wrote:
Go **** yourself.


What an intelligent, well reasoned response.

BTW--I would like to ask the liberals on this board to publicly thank the
President for having the insight to institute a plan that would draw the
terrorists into a central location in the Middle East...so that our properly
armed soldiers can fight them there, instead of civilians getting blown up
over here.


Actually, that's not what's happening at all.

Ask any clued-in person at the CIA, DIA, State Dept, or military intel
about the 'Class of 2005' effect.

DSK

NOYB wrote:
"Ignoramus20427" wrote in message
...
I would like to ask the conservatives on this board to publicly
apologize for supporting this war.

Go **** yourself.

BTW--I would like to ask the liberals on this board to publicly thank the
President for having the insight to institute a plan that would draw the
terrorists into a central location in the Middle East...so that our properly
armed soldiers can fight them there, instead of civilians getting blown up
over here.

Go **** yourself.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:19:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"Ignoramus20427" wrote in message
...
I would like to ask the conservatives on this board to publicly
apologize for supporting this war.

Go **** yourself.

BTW--I would like to ask the liberals on this board to publicly thank the
President for having the insight to institute a plan that would draw the
terrorists into a central location in the Middle East...so that our
properly armed soldiers can fight them there, instead of civilians getting
blown up over here.

When our next President, most likely a Democrat thanks to GWB, is still
killing terrorists in Iraq, I wonder if you will still be so thankful.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:19:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"Ignoramus20427" wrote in message
...
I would like to ask the conservatives on this board to publicly
apologize for supporting this war.

Go **** yourself.

BTW--I would like to ask the liberals on this board to publicly thank the
President for having the insight to institute a plan that would draw the
terrorists into a central location in the Middle East...so that our
properly armed soldiers can fight them there, instead of civilians
getting
blown up over here.

When our next President, most likely a Democrat thanks to GWB, is still
killing terrorists in Iraq, I wonder if you will still be so thankful.

Whoever the next President is, I just hope he doesn't pull out of Iraq,
further emboldening the terrorists.


From bin Laden's Fatwa in 1996:

" Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took
place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces
at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this
courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than
twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous
propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of
the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force,
including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However,
when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American
Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying
disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared
in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these
threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by
Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became
very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy
to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three
Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu. "


---------------------------------------------------------------------
For all those who say that we're losing in Iraq, I say this: as long as we
stay there in the face of adversity, the terrorists have lost. Only when we
leave, will they have won.

We will never lose as long as a Bush is President.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

We will never lose as long as a Bush is President.

You cannot possibly be that simple-minded.

You missed what I said. I said that withdrawal equals losing. We will
never lose as long as a Bush is President.


Bush 2008. Eight more years.

"Ignoramus20427" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:59:56 GMT, NOYB wrote:
From bin Laden's Fatwa in 1996:

" Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took
place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and
pieces
at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this
courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than
twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous
propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of
the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force,
including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However,
when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American
Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying
disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton
appeared
in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these
threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced
by
Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses
became
very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a
remedy
to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three
Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu. "

That was quite lucid. "They" have a lot more at stake in Iraq than we
do.


If by "they", you mean the terrorists, than my response is : "Yes, they do".
If the terrorists are unsuccessful in ousting us from Iraq, then they will
have failed in their ultimate goal...which is ousting US troops from the
entire Middle East so that they can establish an Islamic state funded by
control of the region's oil.






For all those who say that we're losing in Iraq, I say this: as long as
we
stay there in the face of adversity, the terrorists have lost. Only when
we
leave, will they have won.

Wars can be lost even with a lot of resolve. A country can lose due to
lack of money, or lack of soldiers. With a all volunteer military and
declining enlistment, that is not very far fetched.

We'll always have a military presence in Iraq. Always.



We will never lose as long as a Bush is President.

That's not going to last beyond the next few years, for sure.

Notice I said *a* Bush...not necessarily George W. Bush.

Bush in 2008. Eight more years.

NOYB wrote:
We'll always have a military presence in Iraq. Always.


So, the pronouncements that we went into Iraq to spread democracy &
freedom, then leave, all that was also a lie?

DSK

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:59:56 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Whoever the next President is, I just hope he doesn't pull out of Iraq,
further emboldening the terrorists.

Well, I agree with that. Thanks to GWB, we have broken Iraq. It is now
our duty to fix it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------- For
all those who say that we're losing in Iraq, I say this: as long as we
stay there in the face of adversity, the terrorists have lost. Only when
we leave, will they have won.

We will never lose as long as a Bush is President.

The guy is an incompetent boob. If you haven't noticed, his "political
capital" has been ****ed away. The status quo in Iraq is not enough.
The President's rosy statements are not enough. There are real problems
in Iraq and Civil War is still a serious possibility. This cowboy's idea
of leadership is to prance around in a flight suit. It's not enough.

An interesting take on Iraq:

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dail...005062822.html

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:35:57 -0400, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
We'll always have a military presence in Iraq. Always.


So, the pronouncements that we went into Iraq to spread democracy &
freedom, then leave, all that was also a lie?

DSK

The Pres will be on the tube in about 1 minute. Listen closely.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
We'll always have a military presence in Iraq. Always.


So, the pronouncements that we went into Iraq to spread democracy &
freedom, then leave, all that was also a lie?


Nope. It was the truth...albeit a partial truth.

NOYB wrote:
We'll always have a military presence in Iraq. Always.



So, the pronouncements that we went into Iraq to spread democracy &
freedom, then leave, all that was also a lie?



NOYB wrote:
Nope. It was the truth...albeit a partial truth.


So, it's wet, but the partial truth is that it's dry and has always
been? It's black, but the partial truth is that it's white? Up but
partially down?

Your inner socialist agitator must be enjoying this, making the
Bush/Cheney party line so ridiculous.

DSK

This cowboy's idea
of leadership is to prance around in a flight suit. It's not enough. "

But I bet he knows what "is" is.... ;)

NOYB wrote:

We will never lose as long as a Bush is President.

Narrow minded twit.

In the famous words of NOYB, himself "go **** yourself".

wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:

We will never lose as long as a Bush is President.

Narrow minded twit.

In the famous words of NOYB, himself "go **** yourself".


The Bassy Show is officially on the air. Enjoy!

Now for a word from our sponsor.

John H wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:35:57 -0400, DSK wrote:

NOYB wrote:
We'll always have a military presence in Iraq. Always.


So, the pronouncements that we went into Iraq to spread democracy &
freedom, then leave, all that was also a lie?

DSK

The Pres will be on the tube in about 1 minute. Listen closely.
--
John H

yeah, he mentions 9/11 SIX TIMES. There is no connection to Iraq and
9/11, and most people know this, although many don't admit it.

The only apology that I can think that the "conservative" intelligent
persons of the US have to make, is that we provided a public school system
that could unleash people that cannot understand the real issues of the war.
This war is not lost! The campaign is actually going quite well.
Unfortunately, due to most of the network news medias bias you won't be able
to see the victories. You might actually have to do a little research to
find the truth. But I can see from the original post, that research would
be out of the question.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
I would like to ask the conservatives on this board to publicly
apologize for supporting this war.


NOYB wrote:
Go **** yourself.


What an intelligent, well reasoned response.

BTW--I would like to ask the liberals on this board to publicly thank the
President for having the insight to institute a plan that would draw the
terrorists into a central location in the Middle East...so that our
properly armed soldiers can fight them there, instead of civilians
getting blown up over here.


Actually, that's not what's happening at all.

Ask any clued-in person at the CIA, DIA, State Dept, or military intel
about the 'Class of 2005' effect.

DSK

NOBBY wrote:
Whoever the next President is, I just hope he doesn't pull out of Iraq,
further emboldening the terrorists.


You said the other day that we will "always" have military in Iraq? Why
did President Bush, just last night, say that we will not stay one day
longer than necessary?

Sounds to me like he's setting the stage for a 'declare victory and go
home' scenario.

thunder wrote:
Well, I agree with that. Thanks to GWB, we have broken Iraq. It is now
our duty to fix it.


Agreed, but how? Right now, there is darn little progress being made on
"rebuilding" Iraq... our military was ordered to blow up electric &
water plants, so that US contractors could make a fat profit rebuilding
them... but now the contractors are spending 99% of their money on
security, and 99% of their time hunkered down waiting. We haven't even
restored basic services to all of Baghdad.

DSK

Jack wrote:
The only apology that I can think that the "conservative" intelligent
persons of the US have to make, is that we provided a public school system
that could unleash people that cannot understand the real issues of the war.

What, cheap oil and getting revenge for W's daddy?


This war is not lost! The campaign is actually going quite well.

If by 'the campaign' you mean the scramble for dollars by Bush &
Cheney's cronies, then yeah it's great. However, the overall strategic
outlook in terms of conventional military strength has not looked so
bleak for the U.S. since the British marched in and burned the White
House in 1812. We are heavily in debt, have very little uncommitted
strength, and no credibibility.

If you look at the anti-terrorist picture, it's possibly worse. Instead
of isolated bases in Afghanistan, anti-US terrorists now have a
centralized location. Instead of using irrational religious dogma to try
and make recruits hate America, now they flock into terrorist cells with
a burning desire to kill Americans even if it means becoming a suicide
bomber. Instead of learning how to home-brew primitive bombs from books,
now they have live-fire exercises with sophisticated IEDs. Yeah, it's
going well.


Unfortunately, due to most of the network news medias bias you won't be able
to see the victories.

You mean, Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Hair Club For Angry White Men
isn't giving us the truth?

Face facts, the mainstream media now is biased very heavily towards
promoting President Bush and his agenda. How many times have you heard
about how terrible Howard Dean is, and how many times have you heard
about Halliburton's ongoing theft & fraud investigation?


... You might actually have to do a little research to
find the truth. But I can see from the original post, that research would
be out of the question.

I can see from your post that facing actual facts in the real world is
out o the question, so go ahead with your 'research.' Maybe you can tell
us how the insurgency is on it's last legs.

DSK

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:42:31 -0400, DSK wrote:


thunder wrote:
Well, I agree with that. Thanks to GWB, we have broken Iraq. It is now
our duty to fix it.


Agreed, but how? Right now, there is darn little progress being made on
"rebuilding" Iraq... our military was ordered to blow up electric & water
plants, so that US contractors could make a fat profit rebuilding them...
but now the contractors are spending 99% of their money on security, and
99% of their time hunkered down waiting. We haven't even restored basic
services to all of Baghdad.

I'm afraid it's a crap shoot and answers are a little above my pay scale
but some suggestions if I were king.

Fire Rumsfeld. He seems to be the root cause of many of our mistakes.
Shinseki was right. We need more boots on the ground. It will entail a
draft, but so be it. We are asking too much from our too few soldiers,
some of whom are on their third tour.

Fire Halliburton. The job is clearly too big for them. Instead of hiring
American firms to accomplish the rebuild, we should be hiring Iraqi firms
with Iraqi employees. If the Iraqi companies are not qualified
(unlikely), perhaps something like FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps. We
have to put Iraqis to work. Gainfully employed Iraqis a less likely to be
future terrorists.

Senator Biden makes some good points:

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dail...005062822.html

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:48:14 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:


Well, why not grab some sailors and airmen, hand them rifles, and put them
on the ground in Iraq?

Sending armed men into a situation they are not trained for is not only
dangerous, it's reckless.

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:

We will never lose as long as a Bush is President.

Narrow minded twit.

In the famous words of NOYB, himself "go **** yourself".


The Bassy Show is officially on the air. Enjoy!

Uh, ****stain, NOYB said it. I just repeated it. Did you chastise HIM?

thunder wrote:
I'm afraid it's a crap shoot and answers are a little above my pay scale
but some suggestions if I were king.

Fire Rumsfeld. He seems to be the root cause of many of our mistakes.
Shinseki was right. We need more boots on the ground.

Hey! Didn't you just hear NOBBY a minute ago saying that no generals had
ever asked for more troops, and if they did, it was because they had an
axe to grind?

Personally I thought they should never have put Rumsfeld in as Defense
Sc'y; he's too inclined to believe his own bull****. But why would a
President who doesn't believe he himself ahs ever made a mistake find
fault with this?


... It will entail a
draft, but so be it. We are asking too much from our too few soldiers,
some of whom are on their third tour.


We need more manpower. I don't think a draft is the best way to get it,
but it may be necessary anyway a few years down the road.

Another thing we need is international consensus. After Sept 11th, we
had the overwhelming support of the world. We need to regain at least
some of that, we need cooperation in tracking terrorist networks, and it
may be possible to gain allies to send more troops into Iraq...
obviously we'd have to do something very differently, but here's a way
to kill two birds with one stone.


Fire Halliburton. The job is clearly too big for them. Instead of hiring
American firms to accomplish the rebuild, we should be hiring Iraqi firms
with Iraqi employees.

Agreed.

But you have to realize, Halliburton is one of the reason why the
Bush/Cheney Administration launched this war. It wasn't about terrorism,
since there weren't any in Iraq, it wasn't about WMDs since there
weren't any of those either, it wasn't about Sept 11th since there are
no proven links, and if it was about oil then we've made an extremely
bad... blatant incompetently bad... guess about how much the oil would
cost.

This war is about funneling HUGE amounts of money into the pockets of
Bush & Cheney's cronies, money that their campaign funds will get a cut
of, which will make them (and their allies) almost unbeatable. It has
been a tremendous success in that regard, so why should anybody expect
Buch or Cheney to talk about failure?



Senator Biden makes some good points:

Yeah but everybody knows that Democrats are homo-loving America-hating
libby-rull traitors. Senator Biden was a deserter, there's a statue of
him in Hanoi, and he gets his funding from Al-Queda!

DSK

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:56 -0400, DSK wrote:


This war is about funneling HUGE amounts of money into the pockets of Bush
& Cheney's cronies, money that their campaign funds will get a cut of,
which will make them (and their allies) almost unbeatable. It has been a
tremendous success in that regard, so why should anybody expect Buch or
Cheney to talk about failure?

It's been over two years since we invaded Iraq, and things haven't
improved substantially, if at all. Bush and Cheney may not talk about
failure, but in the rest of America that possibility is becoming
increasing clear. Last night's speech makes it apparent that the status
quo is good enough for the Chump, but it's not. Can you say quagmire?

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
The only apology that I can think that the "conservative" intelligent
persons of the US have to make, is that we provided a public school
system that could unleash people that cannot understand the real issues
of the war.

What, cheap oil and getting revenge for W's daddy?


This war is not lost! The campaign is actually going quite well.

If by 'the campaign' you mean the scramble for dollars by Bush & Cheney's
cronies, then yeah it's great. However, the overall strategic outlook in
terms of conventional military strength has not looked so bleak for the
U.S. since the British marched in and burned the White House in 1812. We
are heavily in debt, have very little uncommitted strength, and no
credibibility.

_________________________________________________

Just what type of debt do you really think we're in? If you take the
entire monetary cost of the war, thus far; How many (federal only)tax
income days to the government do you think this war has consumed? And by
that question, lets make sure that we are talking about the entire war all
the way back to day one. I realize that I'm asking someone a question
that hasn't the information necessary to answer, therefore I will answer it
for you. If you take the entire war costs, it would take approximately 6
days to pay for it. Now I will admit one thing, that the Bush presidency
has spent more than any presidency that I can recall, but don't keep saying
or eluding that this war is costing this country in the fashion that you
are, because someone will call you to the carpet about it. Also, when you
say that this is a "....scramble for dollars..." please tell us what you
mean. Its a cheap shot to throw that statement out with out backing it
up. Please tell us exactly what type and amounts of money that Bush and
Cheney have made from this? And BTW, if your going to attempt to bring
Haliburton into this conversation, then you had better do your homework
because I have and am prepared to slam your slander with facts, it won't be
pretty. You also say that ".... overall look of military strength has not
looked so bleak....". Just what do you want us to do to prove our
strength? Shall we go in and carpet bomb some area? Shall we use
nukes? Shall we send in more troops? Just what would your strategy be?
You love to slam the current thought processes, but offer none of your own.
You love to tell of the failures (in your eyes) but offer no change or
charge of your own. Why not participate in the progress of the nation
rather than the sit on the sidelines and yell at the referee. Since you
want us to show our strength, lets go, send in 250,000 more troops, that
should add to the confusion, I mean security.
________________________________________________

If you look at the anti-terrorist picture, it's possibly worse. Instead of
isolated bases in Afghanistan, anti-US terrorists now have a centralized
location. Instead of using irrational religious dogma to try and make
recruits hate America, now they flock into terrorist cells with a burning
desire to kill Americans even if it means becoming a suicide bomber.
Instead of learning how to home-brew primitive bombs from books, now they
have live-fire exercises with sophisticated IEDs. Yeah, it's going well.

_________________________________________________
I definitely like your way better, lets not do what we've done, lets sit by
and wait for them to come to us instead of getting them all together so that
we can easier target them. Yep, you should definitely be in charge.
_________________________________________________






Unfortunately, due to most of the network news medias bias you won't be
able to see the victories.

You mean, Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Hair Club For Angry White Men
isn't giving us the truth?

Face facts, the mainstream media now is biased very heavily towards
promoting President Bush and his agenda. How many times have you heard
about how terrible Howard Dean is, and how many times have you heard about
Halliburton's ongoing theft & fraud investigation?


... You might actually have to do a little research to find the truth.
But I can see from the original post, that research would be out of the
question.

I can see from your post that facing actual facts in the real world is out
o the question, so go ahead with your 'research.' Maybe you can tell us
how the insurgency is on it's last legs.

DSK

_________________________________________________
I don't think that I have to, why not do some research and let us know what
you find out. I'm anxious to see your responses. I love political
debates.
_______________________________________________

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:24:27 GMT, "Jack" wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Jack wrote:
The only apology that I can think that the "conservative" intelligent
persons of the US have to make, is that we provided a public school
system that could unleash people that cannot understand the real issues
of the war.

What, cheap oil and getting revenge for W's daddy?


This war is not lost! The campaign is actually going quite well.

If by 'the campaign' you mean the scramble for dollars by Bush & Cheney's
cronies, then yeah it's great. However, the overall strategic outlook in
terms of conventional military strength has not looked so bleak for the
U.S. since the British marched in and burned the White House in 1812. We
are heavily in debt, have very little uncommitted strength, and no
credibibility.

_______________________________________________ __

Just what type of debt do you really think we're in? If you take the
entire monetary cost of the war, thus far; How many (federal only)tax
income days to the government do you think this war has consumed? And by
that question, lets make sure that we are talking about the entire war all
the way back to day one. I realize that I'm asking someone a question
that hasn't the information necessary to answer, therefore I will answer it
for you. If you take the entire war costs, it would take approximately 6
days to pay for it. Now I will admit one thing, that the Bush presidency
has spent more than any presidency that I can recall, but don't keep saying
or eluding that this war is costing this country in the fashion that you
are, because someone will call you to the carpet about it. Also, when you
say that this is a "....scramble for dollars..." please tell us what you
mean. Its a cheap shot to throw that statement out with out backing it
up. Please tell us exactly what type and amounts of money that Bush and
Cheney have made from this? And BTW, if your going to attempt to bring
Haliburton into this conversation, then you had better do your homework
because I have and am prepared to slam your slander with facts, it won't be
pretty. You also say that ".... overall look of military strength has not
looked so bleak....". Just what do you want us to do to prove our
strength? Shall we go in and carpet bomb some area? Shall we use
nukes? Shall we send in more troops? Just what would your strategy be?
You love to slam the current thought processes, but offer none of your own.
You love to tell of the failures (in your eyes) but offer no change or
charge of your own. Why not participate in the progress of the nation
rather than the sit on the sidelines and yell at the referee. Since you
want us to show our strength, lets go, send in 250,000 more troops, that
should add to the confusion, I mean security.
_______________________________________________ _

If you look at the anti-terrorist picture, it's possibly worse. Instead of
isolated bases in Afghanistan, anti-US terrorists now have a centralized
location. Instead of using irrational religious dogma to try and make
recruits hate America, now they flock into terrorist cells with a burning
desire to kill Americans even if it means becoming a suicide bomber.
Instead of learning how to home-brew primitive bombs from books, now they
have live-fire exercises with sophisticated IEDs. Yeah, it's going well.

_______________________________________________ __
I definitely like your way better, lets not do what we've done, lets sit by
and wait for them to come to us instead of getting them all together so that
we can easier target them. Yep, you should definitely be in charge.
_______________________________________________ __






Unfortunately, due to most of the network news medias bias you won't be
able to see the victories.

You mean, Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Hair Club For Angry White Men
isn't giving us the truth?

Face facts, the mainstream media now is biased very heavily towards
promoting President Bush and his agenda. How many times have you heard
about how terrible Howard Dean is, and how many times have you heard about
Halliburton's ongoing theft & fraud investigation?


... You might actually have to do a little research to find the truth.
But I can see from the original post, that research would be out of the
question.

I can see from your post that facing actual facts in the real world is out
o the question, so go ahead with your 'research.' Maybe you can tell us
how the insurgency is on it's last legs.

DSK

_______________________________________________ __
I don't think that I have to, why not do some research and let us know what
you find out. I'm anxious to see your responses. I love political
debates.
_______________________________________________



DSK, you'd better start hurling insults, 'cause you've just been well pegged!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:24:27 +0000, Jack wrote:


Just what type of debt do you really think we're in? If you take the
entire monetary cost of the war, thus far; How many (federal only)tax
income days to the government do you think this war has consumed? And
by that question, lets make sure that we are talking about the entire war
all the way back to day one. I realize that I'm asking someone a
question that hasn't the information necessary to answer, therefore I will
answer it for you. If you take the entire war costs, it would take
approximately 6 days to pay for it.

Help me out here, I'm having a little trouble understanding your math.
According to the National Priorities Project, the cost of the Iraq War
stands at $180 billion. The federal budget has revenues of $1.862
trillion (2004 est.). Now, I'll admit all those zeros confuse me, but by
my calculations it would take over a month of revenues to pay, not under a
week. Of course, we are only talking dollars, not the 1,700 young
American lives this folly has cost.

War cost:
http://costofwar.com/

Federal budget:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/us.html


Now I will admit one thing, that
the Bush presidency has spent more than any presidency that I can recall,
but don't keep saying or eluding that this war is costing this country in
the fashion that you are, because someone will call you to the carpet
about it. Also, when you say that this is a "....scramble for
dollars..." please tell us what you mean. Its a cheap shot to throw
that statement out with out backing it up. Please tell us exactly what
type and amounts of money that Bush and Cheney have made from this? And
BTW, if your going to attempt to bring Haliburton into this conversation,
then you had better do your homework because I have and am prepared to
slam your slander with facts, it won't be pretty. You also say that
".... overall look of military strength has not looked so bleak....".
Just what do you want us to do to prove our strength? Shall we go in
and carpet bomb some area? Shall we use nukes? Shall we send in more
troops? Just what would your strategy be? You love to slam the current
thought processes, but offer none of your own. You love to tell of the
failures (in your eyes) but offer no change or charge of your own. Why
not participate in the progress of the nation rather than the sit on the
sidelines and yell at the referee. Since you want us to show our
strength, lets go, send in 250,000 more troops, that should add to the
confusion, I mean security.

250,000 more troops? Hmm, I don't think we can do it. Let's see, the
Army has 500,000 active duty troops, the Marines 176,000. We now have
@140,000 troops in Iraq. An additional 250,000 would bring the total to
390,000 out of 676,000 active duty troops. Nope, can't do it without
skimping on training or support.

HarryKrause wrote:

Well, why not grab some sailors and airmen, hand them rifles, and put
them on the ground in Iraq?

Harry, did you notice that in Bush's speech, he actually had an
advertisement to recruit soldiers to be killed for his cause? Sure did!
It kind of sounded like a Nascar driver after winning a race.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:11:14 +0000, Ignoramus23758 wrote:


I am a little bit disappointed that the casualty discussion centers around
dead soldiers only. The human cost of injured soldiers is also quite
great. Due to advances of medicine, not as many injured soldiers die, but
many of them have quite miserable existence, without limbs, health etc.
That should also be taken into account.

My apologies, you are right, of course. There are also other costs,
perhaps less severe, born by our young soldiers and their families, even
if they return healthy. Costs in lost career advancements, lost
businesses, lost time with family, etc.


My rough estimate of the cost of Iraq war for our family, given that it
takes about 1/10 of federal taxes that we pay, is about 5 grand. That's
pretty expensive and is a good reason to complain.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:24:27 +0000, Jack wrote:
Just what type of debt do you really think we're in? If you take the
entire monetary cost of the war, thus far....
.... If you take the entire war costs, it would take
approximately 6 days to pay for it.


thunder wrote:
Help me out here, I'm having a little trouble understanding your math.

That's because Jack's statements completely & totally seperated from
reality.


Jack wrote:
Just what do you want us to do to prove our strength?

Umm, how about fighting terrorists instead of creating more faster than
we can kill them?

How about Catching & punishing Osama Bin Laden and the remaining Sept
11th plotters, including the remaining officials of the Taliban gov't
that sheltered them?

How about *successfully* concluding the business of rebuilding
Afghanistan, and at least taking some more positive steps in Iraq?

... Shall we go in
and carpet bomb some area? Shall we use nukes?

Actually, if we have a credible deterrent and chose targets properly,
this would totally make sense. Given decent military & counter-terrorist
intelligence, the U.S. could say "The next terrorist act against
Americans will bring a devasting carpet bomb attack (or nuke) against
the home city of the terrorists." Of course, the problem here is that we
have to be able to pick the right target, or we're just terrorists, too.

President Bush's credibility is kind of an open question... nobody
doubts he's willing to use American military strength, it's his choice
of targets that is a bit off-kilter. And that's the whole key to success
here, otherwise it's like saying to unruly children 'Be good or I'll
spank the next door neighbor's kids.'


.... You love to slam the current
thought processes, but offer none of your own.

Wrong. Wrong twice, actually. I don't 'love' to slam anybody, but the
current administration has made a train wreck of pretty much every
single thing they've done... and the facts on the ground support that
conclusion. And I offer observations, facts, and possible solutions,
over & over.... but hey, if you don't insist that your opponent has
nothing to offer then you get kicked out of the Rush Limbaugh Hair Club
for Angry Stupid White Men. If you keep saying it over & over, people
start believing it.


thunder wrote:
250,000 more troops? Hmm, I don't think we can do it. Let's see, the
Army has 500,000 active duty troops, the Marines 176,000. We now have
@140,000 troops in Iraq. An additional 250,000 would bring the total to
390,000 out of 676,000 active duty troops. Nope, can't do it without
skimping on training or support.

Or a draft. One reason why we could afford to put 1/2 million men into
Viet Nam was that they were mostly draftees being pai almost nothing...
and feeding them was done by draftees, not expensive contractors.

One thing that is glaringly obvious to me is that the majority of young
people don't support Bush & Cheney, and very very few of them support
this war enough to volunteer for it. How many volunteered for Viet Nam?
A few, but nowhere near enough for an occupation force 500,000 strong.
Young people are voting with their feet, and Bush is losing this one.

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
The only apology that I can think that the "conservative" intelligent
persons of the US have to make, is that we provided a public school
system
that could unleash people that cannot understand the real issues of the
war.

What, cheap oil

Dunno about you, but being into BOATS, and the rigs
that HAUL them, *plus* your regular commute vechile,
hell YA 'cheap oil' is a good, noble, and a *GOOD*
thing! - what idiot thinks that cheap oil is a BAD thing ??

and getting revenge for W's daddy?

Liberal *or* republican, any rogue leader making
and attempt on an American Presients life IS a
reason to go to war! How can you NOT see that ??



This war is not lost! The campaign is actually going quite well.

If you look at the anti-terrorist picture, it's possibly worse.

It will get a lot worse before it gets better, yeah, and thats
because the problem is a lot bigger, and deeper that you
think. No matter what you say/do, you can't change the
fact that Dubya's SERIOUS about this, not afraid, and
will see this to the end, and oh yeah, guess what? ...WIN!



You mean, Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Hair Club For Angry White Men
isn't giving us the truth?

The problem (manifested w/ this assertion), is that you are
not of the caliber to "accept" the truth - you are only able
to accept the truth that YOU want to hear - thats what
seperates us.



Face facts, the mainstream media now is biased very heavily towards
promoting President Bush and his agenda.

Really? What channel are ya watching, casue I want to see it,
and I want to see what you are calling "mainstream" media.


How many times have you heard
about how terrible Howard Dean is,

Not enough. Dude, did ya see the whites
of his teeth in that "Scream" ? dude, it was
of "warewolf proportions". You want dat ?


and how many times have you heard
about Halliburton's ongoing theft & fraud investigation?

Many thats because 'Screnin Howy' is more scary...


... You might actually have to do a little research to
find the truth. But I can see from the original post, that research
would
be out of the question.

I can see from your post that facing actual facts in the real world is
out o the question, so go ahead with your 'research.' Maybe you can tell
us how the insurgency is on it's last legs.

Newsflash: We're takin on M.I. (Militant Islam),
and neither you, nor I can change that. Might as
well join in and be on the winning side for a change.



DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:19:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"Ignoramus20427" wrote in message
...
I would like to ask the conservatives on this board to publicly
apologize for supporting this war.

Go **** yourself.

BTW--I would like to ask the liberals on this board to publicly thank
the
President for having the insight to institute a plan that would draw
the
terrorists into a central location in the Middle East...so that our
properly armed soldiers can fight them there, instead of civilians
getting
blown up over here.

When our next President, most likely a Democrat thanks to GWB, is still
killing terrorists in Iraq, I wonder if you will still be so thankful.

Whoever the next President is, I just hope he doesn't pull out of Iraq,
further emboldening the terrorists.

They won't, trust me. Since 911, the American
people, and the American electorate have never
seized to amaze and surprize me. Be it UN1441,
all the other resolutions, and of course the election,
the American people *do* stand beside its leaders.
Yeah, yeah, I know, it doesn't "seem" that way,
but at the end of the day, they are. All that I mentioned
above proves that. I often reflect back on all of Bush's
State of the Union addresses and the like when
leading up to the war, and all of the rhetoric with
the Howard Deans, Kerry's and Jessie Jacko's,
and at the end of the day, Its refreshing to see that
the calmer, wiser minds prevail (while still allowing
the rhetoric jocky's to have their way afterwards)