What a softball question! The surrender will be signed by Murtha, Pelosi, Sheehan, Kennedy, Durbin, Clinton, Hussein Obammy, and Barry Green.
I have a better question. Who will Obammy negotiate a peace treaty with?
11:40:Not "will be signed by", you meant "has already been signed by"...And you know BG will be the "John Hancock" of the bunch. :)
Of course, it will be signed by Senator Harry Reid who declared a year ago that we had lost the war.
The war isn't over yet, so don't get too excited! We have delayed the inevitable by bribing the Sunni with money and weapons to stop shooting/bombing us. At some point they will demand more than we can pay, or someone will offer them more........then we will return to the days of old. (anyone remember the Taliban once on our payroll, only to turn on us )It matters little as long it occurs after Bush is gone, so he can blame someone else for "losing the peace" Once again nothing sticks to this guy.Meanwhile ole Chalibi has emerged from his hole and become a "player" again. Once again the US paying someone off for temporary gain.........even tho the CIA knows he is an Iranian puppet.Well never mind, it's only US treasure and its finest young people being expended.......Oh if the democrats had the balls to end this tragedy of errors. Alas they don't. McCain will keep the payments rolling.....Not that we need the 12 billion a month for our own problems here at home.
We don't do surrenders. Only pull outs.This reminds me of George Carlin's joke about Desert Storm I. When a guy named "Colon" and Dick start a war, you know somebody is getting f**ked. This time for a loooong time.It's the Iraqi people, the U.S. soldiers and their friends and families and the American taxpayers getting f'ed. This war cost $720 million per day according to some studies.
I think he meant that if WE have victory, does not someone need to sign surrender papers? Otherwise how will we know we won? Perhaps that is what John McCain means when he says we will be there for another 100 years.
I think it should be signed by the President of Iraq and the highest ranking member of the Bush family in the military. Oh, wait...
Come on guys, papers signed by Bush have a way of disappearing after the fact.........ask the Reserve.
The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage the battle in Iraq will end in victory," he told an audience of Pentagon brass, soldiers and diplomats.WHAT HE REALLY WAS SAYINGThe battle in Iraq is far from noble, it was un necessary, and it is far from just. And with your stupitity .. err .. you know what I mean .. I am the decider ..... The battle in Iraq will end in victory for other countries and my cronies in the O& G compines ...He told an audience of Pentagon brass, soldiers and diplomats and other fools in Wise County
maybe we can send jeremiah wright, he seems to have a good rapport with them.you liberals make me want to vomit...
The Taliban was never "on our payroll",retard,inform yourself a little 2:00 pm
3:35, Does the name Sandy Berger or Hillary Clinton ring a bell?
Ever notice how Bush only speaks to controlled audiences? He especially likes military or right-wing church groups. He even gets applause at times. Do you wonder why he won't go into a college or a general audience with these strange comments?As for VICTORY - our military won a victory long ago. The problem is the Iraqis have been unable to govern and control themselves. It is not our military's job to provide police work in invaded areas. Declare victory and bring these good soldiers home. The Iraqis must govern themselves.
I'm not a liberal, far from it, but this fiasco has to end. The whole damn place isn't worth one more American son!Assuming all the crap Bush says is true..........there is one unassailable fact. We have done our part. It's time to end it.
The basic problem is that there is no one to win a "victory" from. The War on Terror has no responsible government to defeat. Even if Bush could catch bin Laden, this struggle continues indefinitely - both domestically and internationally. For Bush to require a "victory" against terror is as useful as seeking a victory on the long running war on drugs. It ain't a gonna happen.
Germ, now THAT was a poignant statement! Geeezzzzzzz
I think I know what you're getting at 3:35 but your're not making any sense.
rpm - Still waiting for you to provide one-half of one accomplishment made by Obama in public office. Oh wait ... he belonged to an anti-American church all these years. Sincerely, Anonymous 119
I have yet so see one accomplishment from Bush after 7 years in office. What's yer point?
Good call RPM. I also agree with anon 2:05. Who is going to sign surrender papers for Iraq, therefore, how can we ever declare victory unless we blow them, and our men and women in uniform off the face of the earth along with much oil and many big corporations assets. I just hope the American people have learned a lesson.
rpm - Just like you to try to switch the subject, as always. So, once again, give me one accomplishment of Barack in public office. Sincerely, anonymous 653
2:23,Good freakin' luck trying to get a liberal to justify/explain/prove anything.All show, no go.Talk the talk but can't walk the walk.Part of the problem, not the solution.Mouths write checks their party can't cash.The proof is in the democratic primary. They're preaching "change" (ad infinitum, ad nauseam) but look at what's going on: they're blowing up their own party by all of this crap-slinging while the Republicans are laughing their asses off as the margin of victory for them in November is growing by the day. They'll (libs) look back on this primary season the day after the general election and think find some way to blame anyone but themselves for the defeat. That's what they do best.It's gonna be fun watching the DNC crash and burn for the next several months. Once they finally have a candidate, he/she/it will be so discredited by all of the primary season's dirty campaigning that no one will vote for them. LMFAO.
Bush can essentially spout any crap we wants. He knows this war (and the other one) won't be his problem for much longer and it will fall to the next poor sucker to deal with his administration's freakin' mess. And that can't come soon enough. What an obscene, embarrassing idiot.
jarhead:"Good freakin' luck trying to get a liberal to justify/explain/prove anything."Your lucky day! I am your liberal question answering machine. Feel free to bounce one off me tough guy."All show, no go."What does this mean? No go in what sense? Surely you don't mean going blindly into terrible decisions like our good 'ol boy Dubya. Maybe instead liberals are "Look first, then go." Just like mammy taught us. "Talk the talk but can't walk the walk."Um... is this show and tell and we go to the school of shtick? See above?"Part of the problem, not the solution."Do these constant cliches actually support and strengthen arguments in conservative-speak? "Mouths write checks their party can't cash."OH MY GOD NOT AGAIN I CANT STOP VOMITING ! !!! !
Well anon187, don't know how I became an Obama supporter in your mind, but a quick wikipedia search says this: In the current 110th Congress, he has sponsored legislation on lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.Does that count?FYI, I plan on voting for McCain because I like his bipartisan approach and his war record. Unlike Bush, he did'nt hide from his duty and served his country with great honor and integrity.But, in Bush's defense nobody invaded Alabama.
Surrender? Only glad you weren't alive in the 1940's.
Ooooooo, I wuffled someones feathers..."Tough guy"? LMAO.
Uh...I'm pretty sure the term "tough guy" was used with heavily ladeled irony.Or at least that's how I would have meant it.
That's why I was "LMAO," genius.
Uh...yes I know. That's why your "LMAO" was redundant.Idiot.
Boo hoo. Did I hurt your widdle feelers?Small minds are so easy to destroy.
Apparently Jarhead has trouble responding with any courtesy or intelligence. He prefers cliches and paper thin insults to meaningful discourse that might actually benefit everyone. It's a shame that people can become so narrow minded and defensive.
That's odd. I thought the MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED five years ago.
rpm:What I have noticed on this blog is that any criticizm of Bush among the commenters seems to be regarded as a person affront to the "angry white men" who flock and twitter here. What I have also noticed is that those "angry white men" tend to view their environment in rather absolutist, black and white terms: "us" versus "them". Criticize Bush in a public comment? That would be a "them" qualifier and that must mean you are a "liberal wienie" and will vote for Barack Omama who is intent on the eventual down-fall of the United States....blah, blah, blah. Granted, it's a rather intellectually lazy position which smacks of a kind of petulant defensiveness, but as you may see from reading some of the jarring comments above, why engage in nuanced discourse when you can just toss out school-yard taunts?
This is late in the discussion but 5:17, be careful who you call a retard. The Taliban was certainly on our payroll during the Reagan and Bush administrations as they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. We supplied them with stinger missiles that were critical in the Taliban repulsing the Russian helicopters.
5:25 you are very polite but mistaken. The Taliban was founded in 1994. I think the Soviet/Afghan war was over in 89. The Taliban only rose to power in 1996. The people we provided the missiles to were just regular primates. There wasn't even an idea of the Taliban in the 1980's.
Everybody still screaming about oil. Have we bought,been given,traded,stole ,diverted or whatever a single teaspoon of oil from Iraq?
2:46 whaen you read something in a Keith Olberman article or hear it on the View and think,"Wow,if I repeat that, I'll sound awsomely smart too-don't you'll seem even smarter.
2:53You won't find my words (so far as I know) among those of Keith Olberman or those on "The View" (honest, you watch "The View"?) because they are my own, gleaned from observation of this blog and those who gather here. In particular I was referring to the erronious assumption that "rpm" was a supporter of Obama, made on the basis of his criticizm of Bush. That seems clear doesn't it?In any case, you rather made my case for me.
2:47"...some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war"."----via Wikipedia
Don't Wikipedia if you want people to think you're smart.
8:29Come up with some counter information if you want people to think you are smart.
2:47You are mistaken. The Taliban existed among other groups fighting the Soviets during the 1980's and was among those supported with arms by the U.S. It is true, however, that they only came to rule Afghanistan in 1996.
Post a Comment