On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:55:01 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:23:34 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:04:12 -0500, John H. wrote:


VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED
Redefined is more like it. What ever happened to democracy breaking out
all over the middle east? Quite similar to the WMD mutating to the WMD
programs, don't you think? So John, when is this administration going to
stop the BS, and try a little honesty?

Do you think the withdrawal of troops from Iraq should depend on democracy
breaking out all over the middle east?


The serious withdrawal of our troops from Iraq will begin shortly after
Bush's term has ended.

Better pray that Hillary doesn't get elected. She seems to have her head screwed
on a little better than most of y'all.
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:55:01 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:23:34 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:04:12 -0500, John H. wrote:


VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED
Redefined is more like it. What ever happened to democracy breaking
out
all over the middle east? Quite similar to the WMD mutating to the
WMD
programs, don't you think? So John, when is this administration going
to
stop the BS, and try a little honesty?
Do you think the withdrawal of troops from Iraq should depend on
democracy
breaking out all over the middle east?

The serious withdrawal of our troops from Iraq will begin shortly after
Bush's term has ended.

Better pray that Hillary doesn't get elected. She seems to have her head
screwed
on a little better than most of y'all.


If she were elected, the day after she took office a massive withdrawal of
troops would begin.

Are you saying that she's lying when she says that Murtha's plan for
immediate withdrawal is wrong? She stated that we can't leave until the
country is stabilized, so it doesn't become a lawless training ground for
terrorists.

If what you predict comes true, then that means she is/was lying about troop
withdrawal.




That's three years away. If we're still in Iraq in force

We might be in Iran or Syria in force by then. Or Iran and/or Syria will
have new leadership and our troops will no longer be needed in Iraq.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:55:01 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:23:34 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:04:12 -0500, John H. wrote:


VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED
Redefined is more like it. What ever happened to democracy breaking
out
all over the middle east? Quite similar to the WMD mutating to the
WMD
programs, don't you think? So John, when is this administration going
to
stop the BS, and try a little honesty?

Do you think the withdrawal of troops from Iraq should depend on
democracy
breaking out all over the middle east?


The serious withdrawal of our troops from Iraq will begin shortly after
Bush's term has ended.

Better pray that Hillary doesn't get elected. She seems to have her head
screwed
on a little better than most of y'all.

Doubtful that will happen
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005...ry%20Meter.htm

--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:29:42 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

If she were elected, the day after she took office a massive withdrawal of
troops would begin.

Are you saying that she's lying when she says that Murtha's plan for
immediate withdrawal is wrong? She stated that we can't leave until the
country is stabilized, so it doesn't become a lawless training ground for
terrorists.



This is why it is useless to engage "your type" in discussion. If
Hillary were to be elected, she would not take office for more than
three years. It is doubtful she will have the same views on Iraq three
years hence as she does now.

If what you predict comes true, then that means she is/was lying about troop
withdrawal.

No, it doesn't, and the fact that you would state such a thing shows
that your mental faculties are limited.

Had to go 'personal attack mode', huh, Harry?

Maybe the NPD stuff should be taken seriously, Harry?
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

If she were elected, the day after she took office a massive withdrawal
of troops would begin.

Are you saying that she's lying when she says that Murtha's plan for
immediate withdrawal is wrong? She stated that we can't leave until the
country is stabilized, so it doesn't become a lawless training ground for
terrorists.



This is why it is useless to engage "your type" in discussion. If Hillary
were to be elected, she would not take office for more than three years.
It is doubtful she will have the same views on Iraq three years hence as
she does now.

Let's assume that the situation in Iraq hasn't improved...or has actually
worsened. Hillary's reason for not leaving immediately is that Iraq is not
stable enough. If it's less stable in three years, why would she change her
mind? If anything, a less stable Iraq should strengthen her resolve to stay
there until the job is done.


This is a silly hypothetical anyhow. Hillary has as much chance at being
President as you do. In fact, she probably has less chance since she has
far more enemies.

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:30:54 -0500, "P Fritz"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:55:01 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:23:34 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:04:12 -0500, John H. wrote:


VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED
Redefined is more like it. What ever happened to democracy breaking
out
all over the middle east? Quite similar to the WMD mutating to the
WMD
programs, don't you think? So John, when is this administration going
to
stop the BS, and try a little honesty?

Do you think the withdrawal of troops from Iraq should depend on
democracy
breaking out all over the middle east?


The serious withdrawal of our troops from Iraq will begin shortly after
Bush's term has ended.

Better pray that Hillary doesn't get elected. She seems to have her head
screwed
on a little better than most of y'all.

Doubtful that will happen
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005...ry%20Meter.htm

--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]


Well, she's leading the Demo's pack, but apparently that's not saying a whole
lot.


--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
If she were elected, the day after she took office a massive
withdrawal of troops would begin.
Are you saying that she's lying when she says that Murtha's plan for
immediate withdrawal is wrong? She stated that we can't leave until
the country is stabilized, so it doesn't become a lawless training
ground for terrorists.


This is why it is useless to engage "your type" in discussion. If
Hillary were to be elected, she would not take office for more than
three years. It is doubtful she will have the same views on Iraq three
years hence as she does now.

Let's assume that the situation in Iraq hasn't improved...or has actually
worsened.

I think that's a safe assumption, and reason enough for us to get the hell
out of there.

You would think that Hillary would have a plan (other than cutting and
running) to reverse the situation so her prophecy about the terrorists
doesn't come true.

But you avoided the question:

If Hillary thinks that we should not leave until Iraq is stabilized so that
it doesn't become a terrorist training ground, how will she feel in 3 years
if it's still not stabilized?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:26:38 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
startribune.com
Editorial: Bush creates illusion of progress in Iraq
What I loved about the speech is that Bush said that we will be
victorious! How many times will we have victory in Iraq? We had victory
in the beginning (remember "Mission Accomplished"). Then, when the
Iraqis got their constitution in order, Bush declared again that we had
won in Iraq. Now, he's telling the naval cadets that we'll have victory
in Iraq!!!!

Did you notice that when Bush told the cadets that they were heroes
because they put on a military uniform during a war, that there were
hardly any applause? Those men and women probably didn't think an idiot
could be elected twice!!


I'd like Bush to define what he means by victory, and the specific
measurements by which he will order all our troops home from Iraq.

Betcha he can't.
VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED

As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is
an
essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds
international
terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in
the form
of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event --
there
will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will
be
achieved in stages, and we expect:

* In the short term:
o An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists
and
neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building
democratic
institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence,
destroy
terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic
reforms to
lay the foundation for a sound economy.
* In the medium term:
o An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and
insurgents and
providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in
place,
providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on
its way
to achieving its economic potential.
* In the longer term:
o An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the
insurgency.
o An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and
secure,
where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern
themselves
justly and provide security for their country.
o An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the
fight
against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into
the
international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and
proving the
fruits of democratic governance to the region.



Sorry, those are nothing more than b.s.
I want specifics.
Otherwise, there's nothing in there but wiggle room.


Here you go:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...5.html#execsum

Remember that this is only the 1st of four speech's on this subject. More
to come shortly. ;-)

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:56:08 -0500, John H. wrote:


Show us where over 80% of the Iraqis have said they want us out *now*. Of
course they want us out. The question is 'when'?

Perhaps next year. Interesting to note, the Iraqi leadership doesn't
consider killing American soldiers terrorism, but a "legitimate right" of
resistance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...431131,00.html

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:56:08 -0500, John H. wrote:


Show us where over 80% of the Iraqis have said they want us out *now*. Of
course they want us out. The question is 'when'?

Perhaps next year. Interesting to note, the Iraqi leadership doesn't
consider killing American soldiers terrorism, but a "legitimate right" of
resistance.

Legitimate right.....you mean, sort of what WE would do here in this country
if we were invaded by some yahoo with an erection problem, and we had the
weaponry to have some fun with his soldiers?