|
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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!! |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
|
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
wrote in message oups.com... 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!!!! They aren't "naval cadets", see below. 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 do believe that they have cadets at the US Military Academy and the US Air Force Academy but, at the US Naval Academy the what you would call students are actually Midshipmen. Midshipmen is a rank and not a title. Most people in the military don't want praise or adulation for their unselfish service. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
Bert Robbins wrote: wrote in message oups.com... 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!!!! They aren't "naval cadets", see below. 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 do believe that they have cadets at the US Military Academy and the US Air Force Academy but, at the US Naval Academy the what you would call students are actually Midshipmen. Midshipmen is a rank and not a title. Big ****ing deal! That certainly doesn't deter from the fact that they weren't thrilled with BushCo. Most people in the military don't want praise or adulation for their unselfish service. Odd, then why when Bush "landed" on the aircraft carrier, the personnel when nuts? How come when he "served turkey" in Iraq, THEY went nuts? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
|
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On 1 Dec 2005 06:10:05 -0800, wrote:
John H. wrote: On 1 Dec 2005 05:26:17 -0800, 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!!!! The mission for which the aircraft carrier was in Iraq, the defeat of Saddam's military, was accomplished. The defeat of terrorism has yet to be accomplished. 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!! Most in uniform would not give a hand to themselves when someone pays them a compliment. -- John H The personnel on the aircraft carrier that Bush "landed" on must not have read that in the manual. The personnel that Bush "served turkey" to must not have read that in the manual either. They must not have read what? No where in the manual does it say a serviceman can't cheer his president. -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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. -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:03:24 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
John H. wrote: Were you watching the live speech, or a follow-up on NBC. The Midshipmen must have stopped the speech with applause 25 times. Was someone holding up an APPLAUSE sign, or was Bush waiting at the APPLAUSE points? The applause was polite, not enthusiastic, as if someone said, "hey, applaud 25 times and get an extra helping of pudding tonight." It's pretty sad when the POTUS is so afraid of the public he'll only appear in front of audiences who have to show him respect or they'll be in trouble. It's pretty honorable that the POTUS would give an Iraq speech to aspiring military leaders. Your (and Kevin's) argument that 'the applause was weak' is hilarious! -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:14:00 -0500, John H. wrote:
It's pretty sad when the POTUS is so afraid of the public he'll only appear in front of audiences who have to show him respect or they'll be in trouble. It's pretty honorable that the POTUS would give an Iraq speech to aspiring military leaders. Your (and Kevin's) argument that 'the applause was weak' is hilarious! That may be, but you may miss a point. This President hasn't faced an audience of the general public since before the election. I think he's lost his nerve. What say you? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... 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? It's not defined at all. It's nothing but paragraphs that can be interpreted any way the misAdministration pleases. "Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism." The key phrase is "full partner in the global war on terrorism". In other words, Iraq allows us to establish permanent bases in Iraq from which we can launch attacks against terrorist factions in the region. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... 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? It's not defined at all. It's nothing but paragraphs that can be interpreted any way the misAdministration pleases. "Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism." Wiggle words, especially the way the Bush misAdministration lies. What does the Administration mean, precisely, by: peaceful Does that mean no insurgent attacks? Only 10 a day? What? united Now that's an interesting word, since many believe Iraq is going to divide into two or three nation-states. stable Not in anyone's lifetime secure What does that mean? well-integrated Another wiggle word. Sorry. Too much room in these phrases for Presidummy Bush to lie as usual about Iraq. The key phrase is "full partner in the global war on terrorism". In other words, Iraq allows us to establish permanent bases in Iraq from which we can launch attacks against terrorist factions in the region. The Iraqis want us out of their country. You asked them? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... 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? It's not defined at all. It's nothing but paragraphs that can be interpreted any way the misAdministration pleases. "Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism." Wiggle words, especially the way the Bush misAdministration lies. What does the Administration mean, precisely, by: peaceful Does that mean no insurgent attacks? Only 10 a day? What? united Now that's an interesting word, since many believe Iraq is going to divide into two or three nation-states. stable Not in anyone's lifetime secure What does that mean? well-integrated Another wiggle word. Sorry. Too much room in these phrases for Presidummy Bush to lie as usual about Iraq. The key phrase is "full partner in the global war on terrorism". In other words, Iraq allows us to establish permanent bases in Iraq from which we can launch attacks against terrorist factions in the region. The Iraqis want us out of their country. You asked them? They've been asked, more than once. Get your nose out of Faux and NewsMax. "Since 1998, Al Qaida has repeatedly cited Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia, as examples to encourage more attacks against America and our interests overseas." Bush didn't just make this up. From bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of War on the United States: "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." |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... 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? It's not defined at all. It's nothing but paragraphs that can be interpreted any way the misAdministration pleases. "Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism." Wiggle words, especially the way the Bush misAdministration lies. What does the Administration mean, precisely, by: peaceful Does that mean no insurgent attacks? Only 10 a day? What? united Now that's an interesting word, since many believe Iraq is going to divide into two or three nation-states. stable Not in anyone's lifetime secure What does that mean? well-integrated Another wiggle word. Sorry. Too much room in these phrases for Presidummy Bush to lie as usual about Iraq. The key phrase is "full partner in the global war on terrorism". In other words, Iraq allows us to establish permanent bases in Iraq from which we can launch attacks against terrorist factions in the region. The Iraqis want us out of their country. You asked them? They've been asked, more than once. Get your nose out of Faux and NewsMax. "Since 1998, Al Qaida has repeatedly cited Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia, as examples to encourage more attacks against America and our interests overseas." Bush didn't just make this up. From bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of War on the United States: "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." Your second bite of the apple has nothing to do with the fact that Iraqis have told us they want us out of their country. Terrorists...espouse the extreme goals of Osama Bin Laden - chaos in Iraq which will allow them to establish a base for toppling Iraq's neighbors and launching attacks outside the region and against the U.S. homeland. Do you not agree with that assessment? I can site examples from bin Laden's 1996 Fatwa once again if you'd like. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:29:37 -0500, thunder wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:14:00 -0500, John H. wrote: It's pretty sad when the POTUS is so afraid of the public he'll only appear in front of audiences who have to show him respect or they'll be in trouble. It's pretty honorable that the POTUS would give an Iraq speech to aspiring military leaders. Your (and Kevin's) argument that 'the applause was weak' is hilarious! That may be, but you may miss a point. This President hasn't faced an audience of the general public since before the election. I think he's lost his nerve. What say you? Well, the State of the Union speech is coming. That should make you feel good. The Iraq speech yesterday didn't sound like it was coming from someone who's lost his nerve. -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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? -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:39:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... 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? It's not defined at all. It's nothing but paragraphs that can be interpreted any way the misAdministration pleases. "Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism." Wiggle words, especially the way the Bush misAdministration lies. What does the Administration mean, precisely, by: peaceful Does that mean no insurgent attacks? Only 10 a day? What? united Now that's an interesting word, since many believe Iraq is going to divide into two or three nation-states. stable Not in anyone's lifetime secure What does that mean? well-integrated Another wiggle word. Sorry. Too much room in these phrases for Presidummy Bush to lie as usual about Iraq. The key phrase is "full partner in the global war on terrorism". In other words, Iraq allows us to establish permanent bases in Iraq from which we can launch attacks against terrorist factions in the region. The Iraqis want us out of their country. You asked them? They've been asked, more than once. Get your nose out of Faux and NewsMax. "Since 1998, Al Qaida has repeatedly cited Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia, as examples to encourage more attacks against America and our interests overseas." Bush didn't just make this up. From bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of War on the United States: "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." Your second bite of the apple has nothing to do with the fact that Iraqis have told us they want us out of their country. 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'? -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... 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? It's not defined at all. It's nothing but paragraphs that can be interpreted any way the misAdministration pleases. "Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism." Wiggle words, especially the way the Bush misAdministration lies. What does the Administration mean, precisely, by: peaceful Does that mean no insurgent attacks? Only 10 a day? What? united Now that's an interesting word, since many believe Iraq is going to divide into two or three nation-states. stable Not in anyone's lifetime secure What does that mean? well-integrated Another wiggle word. Sorry. Too much room in these phrases for Presidummy Bush to lie as usual about Iraq. The key phrase is "full partner in the global war on terrorism". In other words, Iraq allows us to establish permanent bases in Iraq from which we can launch attacks against terrorist factions in the region. The Iraqis want us out of their country. You asked them? They've been asked, more than once. Get your nose out of Faux and NewsMax. "Since 1998, Al Qaida has repeatedly cited Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia, as examples to encourage more attacks against America and our interests overseas." Bush didn't just make this up. From bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of War on the United States: "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." Your second bite of the apple has nothing to do with the fact that Iraqis have told us they want us out of their country. Terrorists...espouse the extreme goals of Osama Bin Laden - chaos in Iraq which will allow them to establish a base for toppling Iraq's neighbors and launching attacks outside the region and against the U.S. homeland. Do you not agree with that assessment? I can site examples from bin Laden's 1996 Fatwa once again if you'd like. We're obviously not discussing the same issue. Iraqis have been surveyed by several different organizations, and their opinion is, they want us out. Americans have been surveyed too. And almost half think we should cut and run. That doesn't make them right. We were the victors in Iraq, so we get set the timetable for our withdrawal. But I can guarantee you that as long as a Bush is President, we'll always have troops stationed in bases over there. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... 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. Maybe Jeb's second term...but no sooner. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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. ;-) |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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 |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:06:25 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
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? It was a "forced" statement in trying to work out their differences, but it still seems to contradict this administration's "rosy scenario". The Iraqis seem to be an incredibly resilient people, but whew, there is so much to overcome. I'm also curious what happens to the neo-cons dream of a base in Iraq, when, the Iraqis tell us to get out. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...431131,00.html "The final communique, hammered out at the end of three days of negotiations at a preparatory reconciliation conference under the auspices of the Arab League, condemned terrorism, but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens. " I agree. But the ones using car bombs to indiscriminately kill and terrorize the civilian population, or destroy institutions designed to provide for the welfare of those citizens, are absolutely "terrorists". In other words, almost all of the IED attacks are being done by terrorists. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... thunder wrote: On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:06:25 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: 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? It was a "forced" statement in trying to work out their differences, but it still seems to contradict this administration's "rosy scenario". The Iraqis seem to be an incredibly resilient people, but whew, there is so much to overcome. I'm also curious what happens to the neo-cons dream of a base in Iraq, when, the Iraqis tell us to get out. NOYB's going to pop over there with his BB gun and force them to keep us there. The Iraqis will never tell us to get out. The deal has already been struck: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...iraq-intro.htm |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... 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? It's not defined at all. It's nothing but paragraphs that can be interpreted any way the misAdministration pleases. "Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism." Wiggle words, especially the way the Bush misAdministration lies. What does the Administration mean, precisely, by: peaceful Does that mean no insurgent attacks? Only 10 a day? What? united Now that's an interesting word, since many believe Iraq is going to divide into two or three nation-states. stable Not in anyone's lifetime secure What does that mean? well-integrated Another wiggle word. Sorry. Too much room in these phrases for Presidummy Bush to lie as usual about Iraq. The key phrase is "full partner in the global war on terrorism". In other words, Iraq allows us to establish permanent bases in Iraq from which we can launch attacks against terrorist factions in the region. The Iraqis want us out of their country. You asked them? They've been asked, more than once. Get your nose out of Faux and NewsMax. "Since 1998, Al Qaida has repeatedly cited Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia, as examples to encourage more attacks against America and our interests overseas." Bush didn't just make this up. From bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of War on the United States: "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." Your second bite of the apple has nothing to do with the fact that Iraqis have told us they want us out of their country. Terrorists...espouse the extreme goals of Osama Bin Laden - chaos in Iraq which will allow them to establish a base for toppling Iraq's neighbors and launching attacks outside the region and against the U.S. homeland. Do you not agree with that assessment? I can site examples from bin Laden's 1996 Fatwa once again if you'd like. We're obviously not discussing the same issue. Iraqis have been surveyed by several different organizations, and their opinion is, they want us out. Americans have been surveyed too. And almost half think we should cut and run. That doesn't make them right. We were the victors in Iraq, so we get set the timetable for our withdrawal. That's crap, but you are welcome to believe it. I really think you should go over there, and bring your wife and kids. I'm sure our soldiers there could use some first-class non-military dental care. There's a reason why soldiers need to be 18 years old, and have gone through boot camp before going over there. You think my 2 1/2, 4, or 6 year old is as capable in defending himself as an 18 to 24 year old? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... 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? It's not defined at all. It's nothing but paragraphs that can be interpreted any way the misAdministration pleases. "Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism." Wiggle words, especially the way the Bush misAdministration lies. What does the Administration mean, precisely, by: peaceful Does that mean no insurgent attacks? Only 10 a day? What? united Now that's an interesting word, since many believe Iraq is going to divide into two or three nation-states. stable Not in anyone's lifetime secure What does that mean? well-integrated Another wiggle word. Sorry. Too much room in these phrases for Presidummy Bush to lie as usual about Iraq. The key phrase is "full partner in the global war on terrorism". In other words, Iraq allows us to establish permanent bases in Iraq from which we can launch attacks against terrorist factions in the region. The Iraqis want us out of their country. You asked them? They've been asked, more than once. Get your nose out of Faux and NewsMax. "Since 1998, Al Qaida has repeatedly cited Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia, as examples to encourage more attacks against America and our interests overseas." Bush didn't just make this up. From bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of War on the United States: "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." Your second bite of the apple has nothing to do with the fact that Iraqis have told us they want us out of their country. Terrorists...espouse the extreme goals of Osama Bin Laden - chaos in Iraq which will allow them to establish a base for toppling Iraq's neighbors and launching attacks outside the region and against the U.S. homeland. Do you not agree with that assessment? I can site examples from bin Laden's 1996 Fatwa once again if you'd like. We're obviously not discussing the same issue. Iraqis have been surveyed by several different organizations, and their opinion is, they want us out. Americans have been surveyed too. And almost half think we should cut and run. That doesn't make them right. We were the victors in Iraq, so we get set the timetable for our withdrawal. That's crap, but you are welcome to believe it. I really think you should go over there, and bring your wife and kids. I'm sure our soldiers there could use some first-class non-military dental care. There's a reason why soldiers need to be 18 years old, and have gone through boot camp before going over there. You think my 2 1/2, 4, or 6 year old is as capable in defending himself as an 18 to 24 year old? If we were the victors in Iraq, why should that concern you? The North was the victor over the South in our Civil War, but how long did it take before it was safe for a black man to venture into some areas of the deep South? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com