Politics – President Bush, prodding Congress to extend the Iraq war without calling troops home, said Monday that Democratic leaders owe it to veterans and their families to pass the war-spending bill he wants.
« < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > »
Thanks for clearing that up, you are saying; the only way to protect others from harm is to kill any who MIGHT harm your people.
You don't see the paraniod insanity of this logic?
It's the same kind of 'pre-emptive self-defense' 'kill them before they try to kill us and call it justified' pseudo-logic that drove the war in Iraq in the first place. Oddly, most congress people bought into it-invade Iraq because they have WMD.
Shaky to me, but once none were found and the true BS merry-go-round of excuses started, then shaky became a house of cards in a gale.
Yet there are many aggressive, fearful people who feel 'kill them before they can try and kill us' is perfectly moral, justifiable behavior and STILL, after everything we know, want to justify the Iraqi caper.
crazy
Since the administration hasn't been very successful with the taxpayer's money it has spent on this effort to this point, how about a money back guarantee? The American people *invest* in his effort and if he is unsuccessful, he is fined and has to return the investment.
It is time that the American people receive value for their investment in government. As a business venture, the plug would have been pulled years ago. I consider *Waterworld* a better return of investor's money.
Oh Libsuck (you great uniter and lover of open discussion you) I'm so proud of my General Custer..You're so macho with other peoples's lives!!
Remember one fact: THE USA funded and supplied the Taliban against the Soviets because idiots like Joe McCarthy
still put fear into you and your pals long after he and the
Cold War died.Those are YOUR weapons killing US Americans.Isn't that enough to make you rethink the cowboy way? Or do you still want more?
Suck, you may think you are determined not to relive the past, but that is where you are living now. You (all of you) have replaced the "Godless Communists" with the "Islamo-fascists" and are willing (maybe eager, in some cases) to gamble away good, promising American lives on the wager that if we don't kill all of 'them', they'll kill all of us.
This was a self-fulfilling fantasy in the Cold War, and it is again now. This conflict - the REAL conflict, with the extremist terrorists - can be won, but NOT on the battlefield. Invading and occupying Iraq has simply ratcheted up the rhetoric and the hatred which supplies AlQaeda (and other groups) with willing bomb-fodder to avenge family deaths and destroyed homes and livelihoods. The Bush Administration did this by invading Iraq when it was neither necessary nor productive in any way.
WHERE IS OSAMA BIN LADEN?????...
First of all abanocca, dems wanted more troops at the beginning (when all the lies were still thought to be true.)When bush decided it was HIS great idea to send more, the dems had realized the error by then, and advised against it.
second, What is there for US to win. how will we know we've won, and How many more AMERICANS, (and others) will have to die before we win?
Maybe if a win was possible, but it isn't so why talk about it. You can not go into a foreign country and kill their leader who was loved every bit as much as he was hated, then take control their only exportable commodity, then rape and kill their civilians, and then hope to play nice. Each generation will only hate you more as long as you stay, so the sooner you get out, the sooner the damage can be fixed.
like it or not the troops are in the middle of this mess. a mess created by Bush & Cheney.
it's not the democrats demands that are unreasonable, it is the president's war that is unreasonable.
Sept. 11, 1996: Iraq fires a missile at U.S. F-16s in northern no-fly zone. U.S. responds by sending more forces to the Gulf region.
Oct. 29, 1997: Iraq says it will no longer allow American personnel to take part in weapons inspections, and accuses U.S. inspectors of spying.
Jan. 12, 1998: Iraq says it will block all further inspections led by American arms inspector Scott Ritter.
Feb. 23, 1998: After meeting with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan secures limited access for inspectors to so-called presidential sites in Iraq.
Aug. 5, 1998: Iraq announces end to co-operation with inspectors, but allows "long-term monitoring" programs to remain in place.
Oct. 31, 1998: Iraq ends all co-operation with UNSCOM. U.S. and Britain threaten airstrikes.
Nov. 5, 1998: UN Security Council condemns Iraqi move as "flagrant" violation of council resolutions.
Nov. 14, 1998: Iraq tells Security Council it will allow inspectors to return to work.
Dec. 9 to 15, 1998: Iraq again obstructs inspections and UNSCOM reports that it cannot continue its mandate.
Dec. 16-19, 1998: After UN staff are removed from Baghdad, the United States and Britain launch a bombing campaign, Operation Desert Fox, in an effort to destroy Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.
Dec. 19, 1998: Iraq says UNSCOM will never be allowed back into Iraq.
Dec. 17, 1999: With Resolution 1284, the UN Security Council creates the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace UNSCOM.
Jan. 27, 2000: Swedish diplomat and former IAEA head Hans Blix is named executive chairman of UNMOVIC.
November 30, 2000: Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz rejects new UN weapons inspection proposals.
Dec. 1, 2000: Iraq temporarily halts oil exports after the UN rejects its request that buyers pay a 50-cent-a-barrel surcharge into an Iraqi bank account not controlled by the UN.
April 20, 2001: Britain and the United States carry out bombing raids to disable Iraq's air-defence network.
April 8, 2002: Baghdad suspends oil exports to protest against Israeli incursions into Palestinian territories. Despite calls by Saddam Hussein, no other Arab countries follow suit. Exports resume after 30 days.
June 5, 2002: UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan holds talks in Vienna with Iraqi officials in effort to restart weapons inspections, but negotiations fail.
Aug. 1, 2002: Iraq offers to accept weapons inspections, but attaches a variety of conditions. The offer is rejected.
September 12, 2002: U.S. President George W. Bush tells the UN General Assembly that it is time to confront Iraq, and warns that the U.S. would take action on its own if the UN does not agree.
Sept. 17, 2002: In a letter to the UN General Assembly, Iraq announces that it will accept weapons inspections. The U.S. and Britain, who had increased airstrikes on Iraqi air-defence sites, reject the offer, and call for a tough, new UN Security Council resolution on Iraq.
Sept. 24, 2002: British Prime Minister Tony Blair publishes a long-awaited 50-page dossier on Iraq's military capability. The government is later embarrassed when it is alleged that parts of the document were plagiarized.
Nov. 8, 2002: UN Security Council passes Resolution 1441, calling on Iraq to disarm and allow weapons inspectors into the country. The resolution warns of "serious consequences" if Iraq does not comply.
What's your point? They didn't have any WMD's
He also conveniently stops the narrative at the point just before Iraq allows the inspectors back in. He also leaves out the backdoor message from Saddam offering Americans unfettered access to any and all suspected sights in order to prevent the impending US invasion.
That's because capecoralM is another Bushbot -- you know, those radical righties who have an inability to say or write anything that is inconsistent with the bizarro-world reasoning of their programmer-in-chief, and truly believe (religiously, one might say) that He is right and the rest of the world is wrong.
They don't reason or discuss subjects, they just make pronouncements in the name of their new Savior, King George, and his apostles (St Dick of the poor aim, St Alberto the liar, St Karl the devious, you know the rest ....).
Pitty those who dare to stand against their righteous King, they say. Pitty them and then destroy them.
Ah, well - at least we can take some confort that those of that ilk not in the government are few, and those in the government have a limited time left there. It can't be too short.
Strange, I could have submitted this, and it would never have gotten to the front page, yet it got here in 7 minutes or sooner by someone else. Something the conspiracy theorists can dwell on .
Bush has an I.Q. of what 91? Less than his father who was 93.
Bush Jr. didn't even know where Canada was.
I wonder where the Iraqi $12B went? Have you ever seen a story disappear quicker?
The story disappeared quicker than the $12bil did. Another excellent job by the media.
Oh, and MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
When Bush did the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" I knew we were in deep trouble. I became painfully aware that he had no idea what he was doing.
deep trouble...
for me it was when I heard 'welcomed as liberators' and the guesstimates as to how long the war would take.
after 'liberators' I knew we were screwed, but I had no idea the depth of the pitcher plant we would fall into
oh yeah, I forgot...
'Iraq will not be another Vietnam'
-George W. Bush, right before or early on in the war on Iraq
for me it was standing on the world stage and label three nations the "axis of evil."
true true
nothing like labeling and alienating millions of people with a single phrase
it's not a conspiracy...it's called democracy. i understand that you might not be familiar with the concept. folks vote for the story and people they like. so there are more of us than you...better get used to it. conservatism is dying a long, slow and painful (to the rest of us) death, thanks largely to the hubris and mismanagement of the Bush administration.
It is NOT conservatism..Barry Goldwater,Ronald Reagan,
Margaret Thatcher, or Dwight Eisenhower would EVER permit this divisness of us vs. them..They would never say those who disagree with anything they say are "the enemy"..They actually did "foolish" things, like compromise or try to prove their point with facts..No blame, no lies, no scapegoats..just facts!! There are no conservatives remaining in this country, who still support the death penalty, are against affirmative action, want restrictions on abortion, wish to "conserve" our air and water, believe that an Uzi or assault rifle is not
protected by the 2nd amendment or allow us to properly discipline our children..No, the logical conservative has no more friends because the religious fanatics, lobbyists, and ultra-right wing jerks have taken our rights away..
Oh,by the way, who cares if 2 gay people live together??
I don't.. but they sure got 6 or 7 million bible belters
to support them!!
I think a few others voted for the war as well. maybe a dem or two, but they can no longer be found...maybe they went AWOL.
Yes some democrats did vote for the war under Bush's prop aganda that there were WMD and that Saddam had a lot to do with 9/11. Neither were true and had the true facts been given to both houses there would not have been a WAR as many republicans would have even voted against it
I was going to leave a comment about revisionism, but read yours and thought you nailed it.
The issue in Iraq is that the Administration believess that progress in nation building can only be done after the military quells violence there. The problem with that is that they have ben unable to do so with their military strategies before, and they have run out of credibility, both domestically and internationally.
People are fed up with the incompetence and venality of this Administration's prosecution in Iraq. Americans like winners, they don't like losers. That's why you hear so much framing about "wanting defeat" in Iraq. The best way to have assured a Republican neocon perpetual majority would have been to make Iraq a success. Instead, it is a dismal failure.
Further, the framing of "retreat" is another misapprehension. The bills passed by Congress call for strategic redeployments in the Centcom theatre.
Fnally, the Iraqis (mostly the Shia) may well be on their way to calling for a new government who will ask the US to leave in any event, and "victory" or "defeat" won't be up to George W. Bush in any case, because he has already stated that we would leave if asked by the legitimately elected government of Iraq.
Then Iran will have a new client state in Iraq, and we can thank the Bush 43 Administration for three things:
1) Destabilizing the regions for no good reason in US interest, and;
2) Handing the Shia territories of Iraq to Iran without any reall loss on Iran;s part, and;
3) The almost certain permanent loss of any possible real Sunni voice in Iraqi government or policy.
Way to go.
Libssuck----"OBL made the mistake of thinking a Republican-led U.S. would be the same "paper tiger" it was under Clinton. He was dead wrong!"
Uh, bin Laden did not make a mistake. He knew that he could suck Bush and the misinformed U.S. into this quagmire, whereas Clinton, who was a Rhodes Scholar, didn't take the bait. And, to the Neocons chagrin, (because they never fail to mention it), Bill was smoother with women than their boy George.:-)
And bin-Laden also knew that suckering Bush into bloviating about evil and crusades would win al-Qaeda more converts.
Then you need to ask:
Are you saying that all of the above were right? Or were they just as wrong as our current administration? Because the above may have said Iraq had WMD doesn't make it true.
Why is Al-Qaeda in Iraq now?
Is it a problem of our own making?
I find it hard to accept that OBL is *dead* wrong. Seems like Mr. Bush has no concern of his wereabouts or what he is up to. I am upset that Mr. Bush seems to feel that it is all right to allow OBL to do what he wants. Bin Laden is Al-Qaeda. The President is acting like he needs Bin Laden alive to allow him to use him as a rallying point. It's another job that our tax dollars went towards that wasn't finished. In any busines, the administration would be fired for failing to bring projects to completion.
« < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > »
Not a member? Sign-up today!
mekhifranks1975
adamhowe1980
leeharris1969
uhexivy
yhovica
nuzalivo
koqezuca
icyvexu
bicysemu
yhuwazi
adivohy
jelofuki
ebypola
ugidaze
ygamote
ilotemu
gacewoti
elyjiwo
Raiderwall
rytujoza
wijahenu
paqivule
bexiwymu
miloqyka
rusakyno
hujeboxa
wekasonu
iworany
rofydepi
stwor
tanglang
ishmuga
AMATEUR
HonestlyNow
HonestlyTruly
rdkenr
rever
klpzilltiff
greeneyes
Matteu00
564)
and just how will that government stabalize when even internally the largest group (Shiites) are bailing out and leaving the government.
Until you neocons wake up and understand this is a religious civil war that has gone on for a thousand years you can never see a clear picture.
BTW if you are no coward why are you here and not over there carrying a gun if you think our military presence is doing so much good.