.jpg)
Over the last three months, more U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq than in any other three month span. That number: 329.
Let's get out of there. A civil war is inevitable. The fact that the land will become more unstable than before Saddam is inevitable. The fact that oil prices will skyrocket is inevitable.
There is no way to end this war which is really not a war at all. Who, exactly, would sign the Declaration of Surrender?
Thank you, President Bush. The only one that doesn't realize all of this is you.
40 comments:
I get tired head from the likes of you. You are incorrect. There is a purpose to the war...you just fail to acknowledge it because of your contempt of the current administration. Politics is what it is, but completing our job in Iraq is beyond those politics. The majority of their population is dependant upon us to solve their problems...not a good position to be in, but we are never-the-less obligated.
Quit whining for withdrawal and start demanding definitive resolution. Allow our soldiers to "SOLDIER"...not "Police".
Too many come home and are complaining that too many Americans are sounding too much like the enemy.
Two people who should send a great big "Thank You" to Bush are Lady Bird Johnson and the children of Richard Nixon. Who would have thought that it would be posible for one President to have utterly wasted more of this countries young people than Johnson or run a more corrupt administration than Nixon.
7:07 - Please check with independent military leaders. The invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and poorly executed. We quickly won a "military victory" but were not prepared to deal with its aftermath. Now, there is no "winning" solution. We have alienated both sides of the primary Iraq culture. We have allowed a civil war to develop that we are powerless to contain. Shooting all the "bad guys" is not a solution. No matter how long we leave troops there, some will continue to be killed or maimed - for no good result. We need to declare our clear military victory and claim regime change and get out of there. Yes, a mess will be left behind but it must be solved by the Iraqi - not imposed by us.
Thank you Goober. You made a good point. Anon 7:07, you are just like your hero George Jr. Head suck firmly in the sand and thinking "Them damn Muslims have to run out of people erventually". Well guess what. All those folks over there have ever known was war and strife and they can stick it out as long as we are willing to. They don't play by the same rules though, just like the Vietnamese didn't.
Some of you Royal pain in the A** right wingnuts need to go there yourselves or send your sons and daughters if you think it is such a noble cause. It's about OIL, plain and simple, and how much money it can make George and Dick's Cronies.
You are so right, Barry.
7:07 - The purpose to the war that we were originally told was to take out Hussein because he had all these weapons of mass destruction - nuclear capabilities & biological weapons. He had nothing like that & people like you forget that was why we were told we had to invade.
We were also told the mission was accomplished.
So you said there is a purpose to the war - what is it? Since Bush no longer even tries to clearly identify a purpose any longer, why don't you enlighten us?
Car bombs in London and Glasgow the last couple of days. Authorities there hunting down al-Qaeda cells. While the car bombs haven't yet been linked to Islamic terrorists, those guys are at the top of the list of suspects.
The soldiers in Iraq fight under ridiculous politically correct rules of engagement. The abysmal one-sided coverage of the Iraq war by the media has added to the number of those flag-draped coffins Barry loves to emblazen this blog with. One soldier in the above linked article says [paraphrasing]: "I'm afraid to fire my gun because I might be on CNN the next day."
The war in Iraq has been poorly run due to political interference. the anti-war Democrats and timorous Republicans have wreaked havoc. Anon 7:07 touched on the gist of "definitive resolution." I would be VERY interested to see a poll where Americans were asked if the military should be unleashed to reach a "definitive resolution."
We are at war, look at what is happening to our friends in Europe. We may not be fighting it in the streets as in Iraq, but we are still at war.
It is nice to be able to go out of our homes not to worry that some dictator is going to hunt us down because of what we said or murder us because we are not the right race. We live in a society that has the freedom to do what they want thanks to the men and women who have fought and are fighting for us today. Isn't that nice people are using that freedom to speak bad about this country.
Our homeland wasn't targeted in WWI but we went and lost many. Our homeland was hit in WWII and we went to war to protect it. If the news coverage was like it is today during these wars would we still feel the same about sending our troops over and then whining to get them home.
Our troops were already in Vietnam when Johnson and Nixon took office. It was Kennedy that sent them.
Has anyone watched the news lately? I wonder if anyone would be happier if what happened in the UK were to happen here. I also wonder if anyone also considered that Saddam and Hitler had many strong parelles. Some of those included genecide, hatred for people of a different race or religious belief, oppressive rule over a country, and a desire to rule the world or a one world government (Islam). Is this a world you wish to live in? While I do agree that we (The US) do not need to be the world police but when you threaten my way of life of life I have no problem bringing the fight to them and kicking the crap out of them. Which brings me to my next point. Politicians in thier world of political correctness need to quit putting limitations on how we should fight this war and let the commanders do the job they were hired to do. Lets kick some A$$, get the job done and get out of there.
Have you hugged a soldier today?
8:19 Thank you for your efforts but anon 7:07 checks with Rush Limpbaugh every day so he has no need for the drivel from military leaders and generals who have actually been there and know the facts.
to WordKyle: The car bomb in London was nothing. Bomb experts said that all those bombs would have done was destroy the inside of the car. Fear mongering is no longer working.
The point is NOT the rules of engagement in Iraq. The point IS that we should never have been there in the first place AND that we should get out now. We are now losing in Afghanistan because we don't have enough troops there. Afghanistan is where we should have stayed.
Nice try but you cannot blame ANYTHING, not one single thing about Iraq on the Democrats. Please try to remember the facts: The Republicans had complete control of all branches of our government until the new Senate members were sworn in last January.
7:07 and wordkyle you are so completely full of it. When the original "reason" for going to war is shown to be a sham, rather than saying that we made a mistake and should alter our plan, you encourage full speed ahead. You want a difinitive resolution...like what, they all become white republicans? You want our soldiers to "SOLDIER"...which means what exactly, line up & defeat an enemy army...really...which army is that?
Basically, you're upset that we're not killing enough people. You're upset that our rules make sure that we try not to kill too many innocent civilians. It's that sort of complete lack of respect for other human lives that is evidence that we are not there to help the Iraqi people, but for our own purposes.
I will agree with you in that our soldiers are trained well to actually soldier and are not set up to be police. So, why do you demand that we keep our troops there to do a job they are not able to do? The rest of us see what it is & understand that our troops, no matter how great, no matter how brave, will not be able to solve this problem.
10:03 are you seriously trying to tell us that the MEDIA is the differnece between the war in Iraq and WWI/WWII? That's insane.
The US felt an obligation to go into Afghanistan because we were attacked. Seems to me that the people, government, military, media, and everybody else thought that was a good idea and supported it...because it made sense.
You need to stop letting Lee Greenwood songs make your foreign policy. Just because our current administration decided to do it...doesn't automatically make it the right thing to do. Sometimes questioning your government's action is the most patriotic thing that you can do.
Some on this blog continue to claim a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. There wasn't BEFORE we invaded Iraq. Now we've created many more terrorists there and around the world. Our policies have and continue to create more terrorists than we ever kill. And attempting to blame "news coverage" for all our problems is just a cop-out. Try listening to many top generals who were involved in the (lack of) planning and execution of this military effort. Most of them repeat that our military efforts in Iraq are counter-productive. We have created a real mess for which there’s no military solution.
yes barry! yes ! yes!!
bring em (soldiers) home !! now!
TxSheehan, the car bomb in London was nothing? And 9/11 was just a few guys on a joy ride.
Had enough, 7:07? How many people will it take to cram your idiotic words back down your idiotic throat where they belong. You obviously are on the wrong Blog. You and weirdKyle need to find yourselves a new nest to tear up. This one is pretty solidly anti war and anti Bush.
First of all, I agree with Barry. The Iraqis are about to have a civil war.
I am an independent. Both parties have agendas that are annoying.
TXSharon's commented, "The Republicans had complete control ... until ... January." HELLO, it's six months later. Now the Democrats are sitting on their thumbs.
Neither party wants to be held accoutable. Maybe the war will just magically disappear.
Differing opinions, okay; misinformation, not so much:
1) The London police say the car bombs "could have caused huge loss of life in London's busy theatre district." Read about it here.
2) Bush gave three reasons for the war: 1) WMD. In 2003 the UN, the rest of the world, and Democrats believed Iraq had them, and Saddam Hussein did nothing to convince the world otherwise. 2) Iraq's support for terrorism. See evidence here. 3) Criminal mistreatment of the Iraqi people. Read about it here. Look for phrases like "tongue amputation" and "hot irons and blowtorches."
Clinton's "legal" approach to terrorism didn't work. Treating it as a criminal matter means you have to wait for terrorists to strike first, then try to catch them. 9/11 showed the consequences of that philosophy.
"We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over." - George W. Bush
3) "Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes," said Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the 9/11 commission. Anon 9:44's claim that there wasn't a connection, is blatantly wrong.
4) TXS -- Thanks for bringing up Rush Limbaugh. According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, Rush Limbaugh's audience are some of the best-informed people in the nation, moreso than the audiences of NPR, daily newspapers, or any of the network or cable news shows. If you listened to his show you might learn something.
Reading these comments, I am starting to get hopeful that the power of massive, vocal public opinion will change things, maybe even before Dubya's term is finally over. After all, this blogger originates from small town Texas & it does my heart good to see so many people that feel as I do. (Yes, I know all these people could be from anywhere, but I think that the majority are local.)
Most of you will get several chuckles out of this NYT article.....
Tears on My Pillow
By MAUREEN DOWD
“I miss Albania!” W. wails. “They know how to treat a president there. Women were kissing me and men rubbed my hair. The crowd kept yelling, ‘Bushie!,’ and they almost grabbed the watch right off my wrist trying to get at me.”
The concerned group huddling outside the president’s closed-bedroom door in Kennebunkport can barely hear him. His voice is muffled because he has his face buried in his feather pillow, which the Secret Service has carefully transported from Washington to Maine for the weekend, knowing that it would be needed. They guard it so conscientiously that they have even given it a code name. Since the president’s Secret Service name is Tumbler, his agents christened his beloved pillow Slumber.
“Son, I know how you feel,” Poppy calls in to him, trying to sound positive. “Riding high in 2002, shot down in 2007. That’s life, as Sinatra says. You were a puppet and a pawn to King Dick and it screwed up your presidency and our party and the Middle East and the Atlantic alliance and the family legacy and Jeb’s future, not to mention the fate of the planet. But you can’t just roll yourself up in a big ball and die, George. Your friend Vlad the Impaler is here, and I think you should come out and talk to him. You invited him and he came all the way from Russia, and you don’t want to be rude.
“I’ve already taken him to Mabel’s Lobster Claw and out on the boat. He scared all the fish away. I don’t know what else to do with him, George. He brained the Filipino manservant, the little brown one, with a horseshoe.”
Putin steps forward. “Let me try,” he tells Poppy.
“George, hey, it’s me, Ostrich Legs, Pooty Poot. Remember when you gave me those nicknames? Come out, and I show you my real soul. Dark, dark, dark. I put the Putin back in Rasputin. Listen, Albania stinks. Maine much nicer. I saw Moose and Squirrel in the woods. Let’s throw horseshoes at them! I love this American sport.”
Tumbler burrows into Slumber. “Why doesn’t anybody like me anymore, Daddy?” he keens. “Man, I miss Tony. My Iraq poodle left me with a porcupine. And I can’t believe my own Republicans crossed me on the immigration bill. Now my Mexican buddies from Midland are saying, ‘Adiós, Jorge.’ Vice doesn’t even want to be in the same branch of government as me. Where is Dick, by the way?”
His mother steps briskly up to the door. “Now listen, Georgie,” Barbara says. “We didn’t invite Dick. He’s not our kind. He has utterly ruined your presidency. There’s a Washington Post series I want you to read. I’ve put it in the kitchen by your bowl of Cookie Crisps. It explains all about how Dick played you for a fool on everything from Iraq to capital gains. He set up the West Wing paper flow in a way that undermined your goals and advanced his. He let you act like you were the Decider, dear, when you were really just the Dupe.”
W. howls, “Dick promised me I would never be a wimp and now I’m a wimp!”
Putin intervenes. “No, George, don’t blame Dick,” he says. “Dick good man. Shoots friend in face. But Dick too soft. Friend lived. He needs put more people in your Gitmo gulag, shut down newspapers, kill more critics. I’ll send you some of my special polonium-210 pellets. They just like Altoids, curiously strong.”
Clarence Thomas rushes up to the door, black robes flapping. “I got here as fast as I could,” he assures Poppy, before yelling in to W.: “I’m sorry about the Guantánamo decision. I don’t know what my brethren were thinking, applying the Constitution to Cuba. What’s law got to do with it? I should have fought harder. I was a little distracted by our decision to stop race from being a factor in making schools racially diverse. I needed to make sure that black children all over America would have none of the advantages I had.”
Henry Kissinger oils his way across the floor. “Mr. President,” he rumbles through the door, “it’s not so bad bungling a war. I got to date Jill St. John.”
Condi joins the group, and wrinkles her nose at Putin. He puts his arm around her and gives her head a noogie. “When I said U.S. aggression is like Third Reich,” he tells her, with his most charming K.G.B. smile, “I meant it in a good way.”
Condi ignores him and coos to W.: “There’s bad news and good news, sir. Or maybe it’s Vice versa. Cheney’s going to pardon Scooter. And the Albanians have agreed to put your presidential library in Tirana.”
Why don't you people try and find some of the many positive things that us being over there has accomplished? There are lots but you aren't going to find it in the headlines. One example: did anyone hear about the 24 orphans who were saved by our soldiers,( my son being one)children that were starving and living in filth? The children who flock to our soldiers whenever they can. These children love our soldiers and they are the future of that country. You can choose to just read the headlines or you can dig a little deeper and find out what good our soldiers are doing. My son is a proud American soldier and he is a goodwill ambassador as are the other soldiers. What I am hearing from you people is name blame and politics, look outside of the media box and look at this from a soldiers point of view. Are you wanting our soldiers to come home and be greeted the way our Vietnam vets were? Think about it!!!
2:40 - There is no one, NO ONE, that wishes our brave soldiers any harm. I have a couple of family members that have done multiple tours in Iraq. They are always, ALWAYS greeted like heroes when they come back from Iraq. We ALL support our troops. We just don't support this war - There is a huge difference.
Wordkyle - you are claiming watching Rush Limbaugh makes you more informed???? That's just CRAZY! Unbelievable - I'm not even going to waste my time responding to your claims; you have an opinion that no facts will ever change.
Why do you even come to this blog?
I'm an independent.
In the past 23 years in which I have been eligible to vote, I have never found a presidential candidate or a party platform that I could support.
I support our soldiers, and I know that they are doing some great things in Iraq.
I am not Against George W.
I am, at last, NOT a supporter of this war.
Let's get out of there, bring the 24 orphans with us.
wordkyle apparently can do research but he cherry picks his information as well as the president picks his intelligence reports. His own link to supposedly demonstrate al Qaeda's "relationship" with Iraq actually demonstrates quite the opposite. For example the following quotes:
""The panel's (Iraq Study Group) staff reported on Wednesday that there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
"Were there contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq? Yes," Thomas H. Kean (R), the panel's chairman, said at a news conference. "What our staff statement found is there is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States.""
Saddam was a criminal but he was no idiot. Of course he had "contacts" with al Qaeda but in no way was he interested in a cooperative relationship with bin Laden. Saddam was doing what Bush should be doing: talking with and attempting to understand his enemies. Maybe if he had, we could have kept him contained and avoided the mess we’ve created.
3:08 - First, a person doesn't "watch" Rush Limbaugh, one "listens" to his radio program.
Second, I never said "watching" Rush Limbaugh makes you better informed (although it might make you better informed.) The audience for Rush Limbaugh is one of the best informed audiences in the nation. Not my opinion -- it's the results of the Pew Research Center poll.
Third, I participate in this forum because I like to point out the Liberal lies, distortions and misrepresentations to those readers who don't participate in the discussion. They only get one side of the story from the mainstream media, and conservative voices -- except for mine -- are shouted down.
Plus, I enjoy irritating Liberals, and I know that the mere mention of my name sends a shiver of terror up Liberal spines (assuming they have spines.)
Until Barry implements his own "Fairness Doctrine" and kicks me out, I'll continue to point out the half-truths and deceit Liberals spout.
4:54 - The claim was made that "there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda" before the Iraq war. This is an outright lie, being used to try to make a point. As my link -- and your quotes -- proved, there WAS contact between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Saying there wasn't is false. (By the way, the Clinton administration also claimed ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda.)
Also BTW, the Bush administration has never claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Finally, Saddam Hussein had many, many chances to avoid a war. Go back and read the warnings Bush gave in speeches in the months prior to the invasion. Hussein's experience with the US during the Clinton administration, however, led him to believe that the US was a paper tiger, too cowardly to follow through on warnings, despite Iraq's intransigence and flouting of UN resolutions. Osama bin Laden made the same claim, that Americans had no stomach for war, and would give up at the sight of body bags -- an opinion that Liberals are desperately trying to validate.
wordkyle, you overestimate yourself (what a surprise). The mere mention of your name does not send a shiver of terror up this liberal's spine; it's more like somewhere between a rolling of eyes and a yawn.
9:08:
TordPyle is a real Right happy guy,
As long as he gets Right-Wing chicken pot pie,
If it is Left-Wing pot pie or other,
It is poison, makes him stutter, go Right the further,
He knows that Rush, Sean, and O'Reilly don't lie.
God Bless them each & everyone!
To Barry: Since WorkKyle is now the self-proclaimed terrorizer of all liberals, I think you should add a terrorist alert to your blog. That way, we can check the threads and, if there is an alert, we won't have to risk being terrorized.
OR, maybe a Laugh Alert is more appropriate. If you issue an Orange Level Alert, it could come with a warning to EMPTY BLADDER BEFORE READING.
BTW, more on the London car bombs:
"Explosives officers discovered the fuel and nails attached to a "potential means of detonation," inside the vehicle. Officers "courageously" disabled the trigger by hand, he said. Security sources told CNN that the "relatively crude device" in the first car contained at least 200 liters, or about 50 gallons, of fuel in canisters.
There is an analysis (YouTube video) by a terrorist expert here. He says "over hyped" and in so many words, BS.
I agree TxSheehan, The war on terror is just a bumper sticker. The WTC dissapearing act was done by David Blane. They are still there, we just can't see them. All the victims are in the witness protection program. I guess people that had been standing next to the cars in London if they had blown up would have thought it was no big deal. Kuckoo, Kuckoo.
No one is claiming 9/11 didn't happen. There have also been attacks in Spain, Indonesia, England and elsewhere. However, terrorists have been around before al Qaeda and there will be more after them. The point is - we all need to be vigilant ourselves and support police activity to prevent and/or catch the bad guys. This does not mean we need to live in constant fear. It doesn't mean we must give up our personal rights. And it doesn't mean we should go around invading other countries because some terrorists "had contact" with those governments.
2:38 - Iraq . Saddam Hussein's government did more than "have contact" with terrorists. His regime actively and enthusiastically supported terrorism and terrorist activities. (See my earlier post for a link to evidence.)
Under Saddam Hussein Iraq had the desire and resources to help terrorists attck US targets. That no evidence has been found linking him to the 9/11 attacks doesn't mean he wasn't a threat. Someday, somehow, America was destined to have to deal with Saddam Hussein. Clinton didn't do it; Bush did.
Is it a better policy to let the terrorists strike first? The Clinton administration's philosophy was to treat terrorism as a criminal matter -- not a very effective deterrent to zealots who are willing to die to kill Americans.
When a murder is committed, when do the cops show up? After the victim's already dead.
There was no connection with Al Qaeda! Check the 9/11 Commission Report. Saddam was a terrorists toward his own people but there was no connection with Al Qaeda no matter how desperately you try to fabricate one.
TXS - There is an abundance of evidence that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. That's the claim that Bush made prior to the war, and which has been backed up by extensive evidence..
Once again: The Bush administration never said that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks. However, the claim that there was "no connection" between al-Qaeda and Iraq is just wrong. Check the 9/11 Commission Report yourself; the chairman himself said there was contact between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
wordkyle, It is so tiring to continue hearing you attempt to "Clinton" the meaning of connection. Saddam and his henchmen certainly "contacted" al Qaeda people - not necessarily to cooperate with them but to make sure they didn't encroach on his territory. So we agree Saddam had "contact" but as the ISG report repeatedly stated, he had no supportive "relationship" with al Qaeda. BTW - Bush is having another "contact" with Putin today. From that meeting you may not conclude that he has a "relation" with Putin and therefore supports whatever Putin does.
S-T-R-E-T-C-H the truth until it breaks.
Ah, bullsh*t, WK. Just plain bullsh*t. We're on to ya. You liberal weenie terrorists, you.
wordbile, didn't the U.S. have continued "contact" with Osama over an extended period of time during which they actually funded him and provided him weapons? Therefore, we supported terrorists. Maybe we should detain and torture ourselves. According to your logic, we should attack Congress and the White House.
Keep trying, kiddies.
A comment was made that there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, which is factually incorrect.
One of Bush's reasons for going into Iraq was Saddadm Hussein's support of terrorism, which has been proved true.
The Bush administration has never claimed -- nor have I -- that Iraq was connected with 9/11. Iraq was, however, able and willing to support terrorist groups that would kill Americans, and without intervention the attacks would have escalated and accelerated.
thi war can be won but the american public can not nor will they be able to stomach what our service men and women must do to win
We should never be the world's Police. However, we need not be their "force of mass destruction" either. My generation had its Viet Nam. This generation does not need one.
Bush entered into this confrontation in Iraq illegally, he is, by definition (of the treaty signed, by the USA, at the Hague) a war criminal. And, as such, should be brought to the Hague and brought up on charges as a war criminal.
Why that is not happening is a crime, in and of itself.
There is more than enough evidence to Impeach, and remove Bush from office - along with the V.P. and most of the cabinet. Democrats of Congress met with a professor of the University of Illinois during Bush's FIRST term. He presented enough evidence for them to UNANIMOUSLY agree that - yes, Bush was capable of, and should be Impeached - but, it just would be political suicide for the Democrat who tried it.
Look it up. There are transcripts available.
That the people of America are allowing themselves to be led around like brainless idiots concerns me more than almost anything else about this conflict in Iraq.
Let's talk about voting machines that didn't work properly in Ohio. In a state where the owner of said machines "guaranteed" the state to Bush. Suspicious much?
OH, I got out my soapbox, sorry. Bush should be treated as a criminal for war crimes and it pisses me off to no end that it will never happen because he has set himself up as a little dictator.
Post a Comment