From Slow Failure to Total Failure

[ECW]

President Bush said that his Iraq policy was headed to "a slow failure" until he changed course last week with the announcement that he was sending more than 21,000 additional U.S. troops to bolster flagging security in Baghdad.

The comment, perhaps the president's frankest admission that the previous strategy was not working, came during an interview yesterday with Jim Lehrer of PBS's "NewsHour," in which Bush detailed some of his decision-making regarding Iraq.

"I had a choice to make," Bush said. "Do what we're doing -- and one could define that maybe a slow failure. Secondly, withdraw out of Baghdad and hope for the best. I think that would be expedited failure. And thirdly is to help this Iraqi government with additional forces -- help them do what they need to do, which is to provide security in Baghdad."

Bush added: "I chose the latter because I think it's going to more likely be successful."

After years of Stay The Course and intimating that opponents to that policy did not have the same level of patriotism that those who wanted to Stay The Course, that policy is gone. Defunct. Was it because that policy was a Road To Hell in the first place? It appears that the illustrious WAR president George Walker Bush is agreeing with his critics after all. They have been saying for more than three years that the Stay The Course policy is a disaster and now he concurs by calling the Stay The Course policy "a slow failure."

If having American troops in Iraq doing what they are doing now is a "slow failure" then logic says that more troops will lead to more failure. More chance for Sunni insurgents to have more targets to blow up, more chance for Shia Iraqi troops to leave American troops hanging in the lurch, more opportunities for the radical Shiite militias to kill our troops by sniper fire, rocket propelled grenades, and IED. Yet, this is the course that has been decided upon despite 67% of Americans wanting to be done with this war. If what we were doing before was a slow failure, then this course is total failure.

Ignoring the sectarian violence will not make it go away. Bush always claimed to listen to the generals/troops on the ground and they are saying this is a civil war. He's having none of it. He fired the generals that did not tell him what he wanted to hear so he could pursue a "winning" strategy. One problem: the winning strategy is not a military one, it is a political and religious one backed up by the military. Dealing with only one allows the other two to swing wildly out of control. Of course, Bush refuses to even talk to the political and religious leaders that are prolonging this war and changing it into a sectarian conflict so the only option for him is the military because that's the only thing he can control without being talked back to. It is the hallmark of a losing strategy.

We have been in Iraq for 1358 days since the Mission Accomplished banner said that combat operations were done. In total, we have been there longer than we were at war with the real Axis of Evil in WW2. With this escalation, it looks like we will be there even longer.

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601505.html)

[Labrocca]

Count me in with the 67%. America needs to move on.

[BoogyMan]

The drumbeat for a total failure is coming from the cut and run crowd. If we pack up and leave it will be a short path to a protracted and more costly war in that ENTIRE region in the near future.

Short sighted sophistry isn't the answer to Iraq.

[ECW]

The drumbeat for a total failure is coming from the cut and run crowd.Â*Â*If we pack up and leave it will be a short path to a protracted and more costly war in that ENTIRE region in the near future.

Short sighted sophistry isn't the answer to Iraq.

That cut and run comment is pure bullshit. Your blind support of Chimpy & his minions caused you to miss the solution offered up in my commentary. Just like Chimpy missed it. Try again.

[potter]

The drumbeat for a total failure is coming from the cut and run crowd.Â*Â*If we pack up and leave it will be a short path to a protracted and more costly war in that ENTIRE region in the near future.

Short sighted sophistry isn't the answer to Iraq.


Considering the disdane America has for all things Muslim, why would that be a bad thing? Let them fight it out amongst themselves. Let them wipe themselves off the map.

Why would we care?

[BoogyMan]

The drumbeat for a total failure is coming from the cut and run crowd. If we pack up and leave it will be a short path to a protracted and more costly war in that ENTIRE region in the near future.

Short sighted sophistry isn't the answer to Iraq.

That cut and run comment is pure bullshit. Your blind support of Chimpy & his minions caused you to miss the solution offered up in my commentary. Just like Chimpy missed it. Try again.


Blind support? Hahahahahhaha

I have never offered blind support, but I also don't offer blind disdain either.

[BoogyMan]

The drumbeat for a total failure is coming from the cut and run crowd. If we pack up and leave it will be a short path to a protracted and more costly war in that ENTIRE region in the near future.

Short sighted sophistry isn't the answer to Iraq.


Considering the disdane America has for all things Muslim, why would that be a bad thing? Let them fight it out amongst themselves. Let them wipe themselves off the map.

Why would we care?


Hi Potter,

I don't know about you, but I don't have a particular disdain for muslims. Radical fascist Islam certainly garners a great deal of Ire from me but not muslims at large.

Why would we care? If we don't it will wind up right back on our shores.

[potter]

Hi Potter,

I don't know about you, but I don't have a particular disdain for muslims.Â*Â*Radical fascist Islam certainly garners a great deal of Ire from me but not muslims at large.

Why would we care?Â*Â*If we don't it will wind up right back on our shores.


How so?

(BTW, I don't have a problem with anyone no matter who as long as they aren't extremists)

[BoogyMan]

Hi Potter,

I don't know about you, but I don't have a particular disdain for muslims. Radical fascist Islam certainly garners a great deal of Ire from me but not muslims at large.

Why would we care? If we don't it will wind up right back on our shores.


How so?

(BTW, I don't have a problem with anyone no matter who as long as they aren't extremists)


If we vacate that country without building the strongest possible regime that is friendly to our concerns we will have left it ripe for overthrow and radical fascist resurgence. We know already what that leads to.

[potter]

Hi Potter,

I don't know about you, but I don't have a particular disdain for muslims.Â*Â*Radical fascist Islam certainly garners a great deal of Ire from me but not muslims at large.

Why would we care?Â*Â*If we don't it will wind up right back on our shores.


How so?

(BTW, I don't have a problem with anyone no matter who as long as they aren't extremists)


If we vacate that country without building the strongest possible regime that is friendly to our concerns we will have left it ripe for overthrow and radical fascist resurgence.Â*Â*We know already what that leads to.


Meanwhile we ignore the radical fascism developing in our own country.....but thats' another thread....:D

IMO, we're ignoring our own problems here at home while we go nosing around the world. I have no interests or concerns in the Middle East. Why should I pay to protect someone elses?

[BoogyMan]

Meanwhile we ignore the radical fascism developing in our own country.....but thats' another thread....:D

IMO, we're ignoring our own problems here at home while we go nosing around the world. I have no interests or concerns in the Middle East. Why should I pay to protect someone elses?

Expound?

[Elrathin]

If we vacate that country without building the strongest possible regime that is friendly to our concerns we will have left it ripe for overthrow and radical fascist resurgence. We know already what that leads to.


That's just it Boogy, we CAN'T build a regime in there because the populace is engaged in a civil war as well as insurgents playing both sides against each other.

They have a government yes, but not one that is supported by the people nor is there a government the people AS A MAJORITY are willing to defend with their lives. THAT is the problem and sending more troops is just going to give the insurgents easier targets to hit.

Look I would LOVE to be proven wrong and have Bush be the president that brought peace to Iraq, but unfortunately I don't think that will happen given the current circumstances.

The Iraqis have their destiny in their own hands right now, and it is ONLY THEM that can end this, but that would require for them to ALL WORK TOGETHER, Sunni and Shiite and when is the last time you have seen that happen for the majority of the people?

[lily]

The drumbeat for a total failure is coming from the cut and run crowd.Â*Â*If we pack up and leave it will be a short path to a protracted and more costly war in that ENTIRE region in the near future.

Short sighted sophistry isn't the answer to Iraq.


Well, that cut and run crowd is growing to include memebers here on this forum, the rest of the US and even Republicans in congress. While you sit with the same old sayings, others are realizing that this strategy isn't working and are being quite vocal about it.


BoogyMan Wrote:
If we vacate that country without building the strongest possible regime that is friendly to our concerns we will have left it ripe for overthrow and radical fascist resurgence.Â*Â*We know already what that leads to.

We can stay there until the end of time, but until the Iraqis are willing to not only fight for their country themselves and put aside their in-fighting nothing is going to be accomplished except more death. You can't force someone to be your ally by the but of a gun.

You know, many people have brought up that the Shiites and the Sunni's have hated each other since time began........one would think that when invading a country, one would have been prepared for this to happen and have a plan to stop it, before it began.

[BoogyMan]

Well, that cut and run crowd is growing to include memebers here on this forum, the rest of the US and even Republicans in congress. While you sit with the same old sayings, others are realizing that this strategy isn't working and are being quite vocal about it.

I find it quite interesting that you claim to speak for "the rest of the US." The surge hasn't even begun and you are already cheerleading failure.

[BoogyMan]

They have a government yes, but not one that is supported by the people nor is there a government the people AS A MAJORITY are willing to defend with their lives. THAT is the problem and sending more troops is just going to give the insurgents easier targets to hit.

You are going to have to expound on this one a bit El, the government is primarily Shia, and you must understand that the Sunni's who are admittedly creating much of the havoc are a minority.

Yes, the Iraqis have to get up off their butts and get busy, stopping a good bit of the violence is going to help that happen.

[Elrathin]

You are going to have to expound on this one a bit El, the government is primarily Shia, and you must understand that the Sunni's who are admittedly creating much of the havoc are a minority.

For a minority, they sure are convincing the majority that a united Iraq can't happen. I wager to say more than a "small minority" of Iraqis do not trust this new government.


Yes, the Iraqis have to get up off their butts and get busy, stopping a good bit of the violence is going to help that happen.


And that is the essence of the problem Boogy. Even Bush is recognizing that the Iraqis are not pulling their own weight. If the Iraqis are not going to stand up and support this new government by fighting and risking their very lives for it, this government doesn't stand a chance in hell IMO.

Again, I would LOVE to be wrong in what I see, but I just don't think I am right now.

[lily]

I find it quite interesting that you claim to speak for "the rest of the US."Â*Â*


I don't claim to speak for "the rest of the US", they did it pretty good themselves in November.



The surge hasn't even begun and you are already cheerleading failure.

Cheerleading failure? That's precious. It's called facing facts. It hasn't worked the last 5 times he's tried it. Please, besides Cheney and Lieberman, who he mentioned in his speech (and I want links) is endorcing this?

The ISG, the joint cheifs, past generals, recently past generals and past secretaries of state, have all said it's the same old thing and will not work.

[Stoner]

The surge hasn't even begun and you are already cheerleading failure.


That's what neolibs do...they root for America to fail and support our enemies.

How else could you possibly explain them rooting for the 3,000th soldier to die so they can make a political statement?

Or how about the overwhelming sadness libs expressed when Hussein was executed?

Or what about praying that terrorists will attack the US just so they can say what a bad job Bush is doing on the war on terror?

Or what about the die-hard devotion and cheering for bin Laden everytime he puts out a video?

How about the way they hope we lose the war in Iraq just so they can say, "See, told you it wouldn't work"?

And the worst of it all is the way the libs root for our soldiers to be guilty everytime they are put on trial for alleged crimes.

It's just completely sad and pathetic on how un-american they are.Â*Â*Makes me sick.

[lily]

Those are some pretty strong statements, Stoner. Got any links for all that cheering we seem to be doing?

[BoogyMan]

Cheerleading failure? That's precious. It's called facing facts. It hasn't worked the last 5 times he's tried it. Please, besides Cheney and Lieberman, who he mentioned in his speech (and I want links) is endorcing this?

The ISG, the joint cheifs, past generals, recently past generals and past secretaries of state, have all said it's the same old thing and will not work.


Lily, sometimes the right thing is not popular nor is it easy.

[Stoner]

Got any links for all that cheering we seem to be doing?


I thought you were independent.

[lily]

Cheerleading failure? That's precious. It's called facing facts. It hasn't worked the last 5 times he's tried it. Please, besides Cheney and Lieberman, who he mentioned in his speechÂ*Â*(and I want links) is endorcing this?

The ISG, the joint cheifs, past generals, recently past generals and past secretaries of state, have all said it's the same old thing and will not work.


Lily, sometimes the right thing is not popular nor is it easy.


Boogy........he didn't listen before he went into this war, I don't expect him to listen now. We would not be in the mess we are now, if he would have listened.

[Elrathin]

The surge hasn't even begun and you are already cheerleading failure.


That's what neolibs do...they root for America to fail and support our enemies.

How else could you possibly explain them rooting for the 3,000th soldier to die so they can make a political statement?

Or how about the overwhelming sadness libs expressed when Hussein was executed?

Or what about praying that terrorists will attack the US just so they can say what a bad job Bush is doing on the war on terror?

Or what about the die-hard devotion and cheering for bin Laden everytime he puts out a video?

It's just completely sad and pathetic on how un-american they are. Makes me sick.


Stoner, you keep claiming neolibs are saying this. Now first of all, what neolib on this board has been saying this? And second, at least show us a quote, even if it is from the dregs of DU to prove what you say.

Cause so far I have yet to see ANYONE back up this claim.

[lily]

Got any links for all that cheering we seem to be doing?


I thought you were independent.


So I take it that's a no and what you posted isn't true?

Independent means you vote for the person, not the party. I voted for Bush 41 his second term, I voted for Reagan and I voted for Clinton, his first term. Hell, I even voted for Anderson. I don't follow any party blindly.

[BoogyMan]

Cheerleading failure? That's precious. It's called facing facts. It hasn't worked the last 5 times he's tried it. Please, besides Cheney and Lieberman, who he mentioned in his speech (and I want links) is endorcing this?

The ISG, the joint cheifs, past generals, recently past generals and past secretaries of state, have all said it's the same old thing and will not work.


Lily, sometimes the right thing is not popular nor is it easy.


Boogy........he didn't listen before he went into this war, I don't expect him to listen now. We would not be in the mess we are now, if he would have listened.


I don't buy into the left-wing armchair quarterbacking Lily. I have heard people say that hindsight is 20/20 but this is ridiculous.

[lily]

What you call left-wing armchair quarterbacking, the rest of the world calls facing facts. How are we going to learn, if we don't face the facts?



Don't answer that.........we've got a prime example.

[BoogyMan]

What you call left-wing armchair quarterbacking, the rest of the world calls facing facts. How are we going to learn, if we don't face the facts?



Don't answer that.........we've got a prime example.


Dog gone it Lily, and here I was with a witty retort and you say don't answer! LOL

It is armchair quarterbacking, and it is based on politics. The "facts" you speak of are in dispute.

[Elrathin]

I have heard people say that hindsight is 20/20 but this is ridiculous.


Many of these issues WERE talked about before the invasion by people Boogy. That's not armchair quarterbacking.

[BoogyMan]

I have heard people say that hindsight is 20/20 but this is ridiculous.


Many of these issues WERE talked about before the invasion by people Boogy. That's not armchair quarterbacking.


Elrathin, they can say that now, it is politically expeditious. I don't buy it.

[ECW]

Those are some pretty strong statements, Stoner. Got any links for all that cheering we seem to be doing?

Lily, Lily, Lily... don't you know that ever since a certain simian was excused from the premises that Stoner has taken up the mantle of posting without attribution? He doesn't have any proof of any of these statements and he's shown you that he's too lazy to go and find any. He can post all those "Yup" type posts until the cows come home but don't go and ask him to justify any of his rants because he's got nothing to back it all up.


The surge hasn't even begun and you are already cheerleading failure.

That's what neolibs do...they root for America to fail and support our enemies.

Since I have not seen anyone here on this board that fits that description, your point is meritless. There aren't any neolibs but there are a bucket load of neocons who appear to be as clueless as those mysterious "neolibs" you are whining about.

How else could you possibly explain them rooting for the 3,000th soldier to die so they can make a political statement?

This requires a link because you must have seen something that I didn't when that soldier died. I saw a lot af angry people about the war that your WAR president has dragged us into but I didn't see anyone rooting. Prove this if you can.

Or how about the overwhelming sadness libs expressed when Hussein was executed?

Who was sad when he met the end? Names? More proof is required. You have none.

Or what about praying that terrorists will attack the US just so they can say what a bad job Bush is doing on the war on terror?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Â*Â*A neocon's dream! Chimpy was asleep at the wheel the first time we lost 3000 people. We've known since then he's been doing a crappy job. No need for anyone else to die to prove that point. Wait... didn't we just have 3000 more people die on that account over in Iraq and Afghanistan?Â*Â*Damn! It's a real bitch when the truth sneaks thru and disproves your rant.

Or what about the die-hard devotion and cheering for bin Laden everytime he puts out a video?

Yep! The Taliban cheers long and wide because every video is further proof that Bush is unable to bring this madman to justice. I guess that will have to wait for the next president as well, huh?

How about the way they hope we lose the war in Iraq just so they can say, "See, told you it wouldn't work"?

SH*T. I told you it wouldn't work BEFORE we invaded Iraq in 2003. Thanks for proving me right again, George. (Veterans of American Forum may remember my posts there in this regard.)

And the worst of it all is the way the libs root for our soldiers to be guilty everytime they are put on trial for alleged crimes.

Nah, sorry, this is crap as well. I hope that our troops ARE NOT guilty when they go on trial but I am glad to see that at least some people get a trial before they are convicted.

It's just completely sad and pathetic on how un-american they are.Â*Â*Makes me sick.

I think you illness comes from being wrong on so many of these vital American issues. I'd be sick too if I had to carry the bale of BS that you are lugging around. My condolences. (not really...)

[potter]

I find it quite interesting that you claim to speak for "the rest of the US."Â*Â*The surge hasn't even begun and you are already cheerleading failure.


I'm not so sure it's cheerleading for failure but more learning from past performance. Let's face it, Bush has yet to prove himself after 5 years, how many chances do we give him?

Fool me once...shame on you...fool me twice, three times, or four times...whatever..... :P

[potter]

Meanwhile we ignore the radical fascism developing in our own country.....but thats' another thread....:D

IMO, we're ignoring our own problems here at home while we goÂ*Â*nosing around the world.Â*Â*I have no interests or concerns in the Middle East. Why should I pay to protect someone elses?

Expound?


While the concept of what constitutes fascism will depend on ones definition of what freedom is, I'll try to expound.

The last few years have seen a creeping of totalitarian threat on the public. We have a president who claims almost God like authority who answers to no one, not even the constitution he has sworn to uphold.

The past few years have seen unpresidented changes in how the US government handles it's responsibilities. Torture is now legal.. Rendition (kidnapping and exporting people to other countries for exteme torture which even our own CIA can't stomach), imprisoning people based on heresay without trial, and preemtive strike on countries who are no threat resulting in hundreds of thousands dead. (and seemingly no remorse either) Today I read that Pentagon rule now say a person can be executed based on heresay.

Then we have a corporate dominace on our government pulling all the right strings. Corporations writing energy policy, health policy, enviromental policy with no public imput and in secret. A government that answers to no one, with no transparency.

The president now has the authority to assign anyone he wants to arrest anyone, based on secret information (or a whim), and put them away without trial, or even put them to death, without trial, and without charges. Today you question government authority of any kind at your own peril. And check out the camps Haliburton is building around the country and the reasons they are being built.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B62C8724D-AE8A-4B5C-94C7-70171315C0A0%7D&dateid=38741.5136277662-858254656

The government has laws in place regulating every aspect of your life and finances. Corporations and the government monitor your every move. What you watch, where you go on the internet, what you buy, who you call. Soon we'll have video monitors on every street corner. American has the title of "most people imprisoned" per capita in the world.

You can say this is for "protecting our freedom" and all these things are in place to root out terrorism, but where there is an opportunity for abuse by the government, it will happen. The laws guarenteeing our freedoms have been stripped. And while they do not directly affect us now, they will be used eventually.

This is my opinion. Based on my concept of freedom, we are no longer a free society.

[potter]

More: (this looks like a LW site, however I'm not very familiar with it)

http://infowars.net/articles/january2007/180107Bloggers_Prison.htm

Bloggers Who Criticize Government May Face Prison
Bill would allow rounding up and imprisoning of non-registered political writers

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, January 18, 2007

You'd be forgiven for thinking that it was some new restriction on free speech in Communist China. But it isn't. The U.S. Government wants to force bloggers and online grassroots activists to register and regularly report their activities to Congress in the latest astounding attack on the internet and the First Amendment.

Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com, a website dedicated to fighting efforts to silence grassroots movements, states:

"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself."

In other words Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats may redefine the meaning of lobbying in order that political communications to and even between citizens falls under the same legislation.

Under current law any 'lobbyist" who 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report." quarterly to the government faces criminal charges including a possible jail term of up to one year.

The amendment is currently on hold.

This latest attack on bloggers comes hot on the heels of Republican Senator John McCain's proposal to introduce legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards.

McCain's proposal is presented under the banner of saving children from sexual predators and encourages informants to shop website owners to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who then pass the information on to the relevant police authorities.

[Waffletush]

The surge hasn't even begun and you are already cheerleading failure.


That's what neolibs do...they root for America to fail and support our enemies.

How else could you possibly explain them rooting for the 3,000th soldier to die so they can make a political statement?

Or how about the overwhelming sadness libs expressed when Hussein was executed?

Or what about praying that terrorists will attack the US just so they can say what a bad job Bush is doing on the war on terror?

Or what about the die-hard devotion and cheering for bin Laden everytime he puts out a video?

It's just completely sad and pathetic on how un-american they are.Â*Â*Makes me sick.


Stoner, you keep claiming neolibs are saying this.Â*Â*Now first of all, what neolib on this board has been saying this?Â*Â*And second, at least show us a quote, even if it is from the dregs of DU to prove what you say.

Cause so far I have yet to see ANYONE back up this claim.


How about when Cindy Sheehan MADE PLANS (before the fact not after) to tie herself to the White House fence when there were 2000 KIA. She f-n MADE PLANS; she sat and waited for it to happen so she could launch into a tirade. <rolls dice> C'mon two-thousand!

Don't tell me you forgot about that!

[potter]

More: (this looks like a LW site, however I'm not very familiar with it)

http://infowars.net/articles/january2007/180107Bloggers_Prison.htm

Bloggers Who Criticize Government May Face Prison
Bill would allow rounding up and imprisoning of non-registered political writers

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, January 18, 2007

You'd be forgiven for thinking that it was some new restriction on free speech in Communist China. But it isn't. The U.S. Government wants to force bloggers and online grassroots activists to register and regularly report their activities to Congress in the latest astounding attack on the internet and the First Amendment.

Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com, a website dedicated to fighting efforts to silence grassroots movements, states:

"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself."

In other words Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats may redefine the meaning of lobbying in order that political communications to and even between citizens falls under the same legislation.

Under current law any 'lobbyist" who 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report." quarterly to the government faces criminal charges including a possible jail term of up to one year.

The amendment is currently on hold.

This latest attack on bloggers comes hot on the heels of Republican Senator John McCain's proposal to introduce legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards.

McCain's proposal is presented under the banner of saving children from sexual predators and encourages informants to shop website owners to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who then pass the information on to the relevant police authorities.



Upon further investigation this bill is not as intrusive as as the link made it seem. Looks like it only applied to bloggers paid to influence.

It targets ONLY paid shills -- "grassroots lobbying firms", defined as anyone who "is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients", and given $25,000 or more per QUARTER to directly influence 500 people or more. Those who are put on retainer by a client must register within 45 days with the Senate and the House Clerk of Representatives. And "paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying" refer only those activities that are listed in section 4911©(3) 19 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986."

[Elrathin]

How about when Cindy Sheehan MADE PLANS (before the fact not after) to tie herself to the White House fence when there were 2000 KIA. She f-n MADE PLANS; she sat and waited for it to happen so she could launch into a tirade. <rolls dice> C'mon two-thousand!

Don't tell me you forgot about that!


That is not cheering the deaths of soldiers, that is protesting the killings. It was quite obvious the death count was going up.

Again, far cry from CHEERING the death of soldiers as others have claimed here. Try again.

[Waffletush]

Weak.

So what do you think she was doing when she was preparing her speeches and posters? Telling everyone she hopes 2000 wouldn't happen? Riiiiiight.

We could put up a quote where it said something to the effect of 'Hillary was jubliant that troops were killed' and you'd come back with 'but she didn't say she was CHEERING'. If anything you proved one thing by falling back on a classic tactic of your's. Unless we find a quote that says SPECIFICALLY what you want it to, you will deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny. (hey I just typed all of those without c/p and had no typos!).

[Elrathin]

Weak.

So what do you think she was doing when she was preparing her speeches and posters? Telling everyone she hopes 2000 wouldn't happen? Riiiiiight.

So are you really saying that after a 1000 deaths happened you thought there wouldn't be anymore? If you did I have a bridge to sell you. Sorry you were proven wrong, planning for something that is inevitable is not cheering. So try again, your accusation is partisan at best.


We could put up a quote where it said something to the effect of 'Hillary was jubliant that troops were killed' and you'd come back with 'but she didn't say she was CHEERING'.

As usual, you have yet failed to prove what you have said. Try again. This is too easy.


If anything you proved one thing by falling back on a classic tactic of your's. Unless we find a quote that says SPECIFICALLY what you want it to, you will deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny. (hey I just typed all of those without c/p and had no typos!).


YOU WERE THE ONE that said SPECIFICALLY that "neolibs" were CHEERING the deaths, so yes, I require something of proof to that effect. You have shown NONE, so go crawl away and get some proof or just accept the fact that what you said was pure partisan BS.

It's not my fault you can't prove your partisan statements.

[Waffletush]

YOU WERE THE ONE that said SPECIFICALLY that "neolibs" were CHEERING the deaths, so yes, I require something of proof to that effect.Â*Â*You have shown NONE, so go crawl away and get some proof or just accept the fact that what you said was pure partisan BS.

It's not my fault you can't prove your partisan statements.


Whoa momma!Â*Â*I was the one who said that?Â*Â*I think you need to go back and reread the thread.Â*Â*Accusing me of something someone else said is, let's see, what shall we call it....Â*Â*a lie.

Care to apologise for falsely accusing me?

[Waffletush]

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pcfreezone/vile5.jpg

Nope, no one was ever happy when US troops were killed. Though, Elrathin will say "Yes, but they are not CHEERING in the photo!"

[Waffletush]

He should have been locked up, by all means. Kept him in jail for the rest of his life, to be sure. But to execute him was irresponsible. Hussein could have provided irreplaceable help to future historians of the Iran-Iraq war, of the invasion of Kuwait and of the subsequent era of sanctions culminating in the invasion. Uniquely privileged evidence on the American government's enthusiastic arming of Hussein in the 1980s is now snuffed out at the tug of a rope (no doubt to the relief of Donald Rumsfeld and other guilty parties; it is surely no accident that the trial of Hussein neglected those of his crimes that might — no, would — have implicated them).

Now there is a guy who was happy Saddam was executed.Â*Â*:rolleyes: But wait, damit, there is no audio where is expressly says he was 'saddened', so I guess we all just have to disregard his comments also.

[Elrathin]

Whoa momma! I was the one who said that? I think you need to go back and reread the thread. Accusing me of something someone else said is, let's see, what shall we call it.... a lie.

Care to apologise for falsely accusing me?


My apologies, however, you need to learn the difference between a lie and a mistake.

I have already said that there are loonies on either side, but if you claim the majority of liberals believe that is insane.

Secondly since you like to use the term neolibs, who on this board is one and what in your mind is the difference between a liberal and a neolib?

[Elrathin]

[ Though, Elrathin will say "Yes, but they are not CHEERING in the photo!"


How about you stick to your partisan BS and quit trying to say what I think. You know nothing about me nor my thoughts, so don't claim to be a psychic?

I already said there are loonies on both sides, but not the majority of liberals think this way and you know it.

[Elrathin]

Now there is a guy who was happy Saddam was executed. :rolleyes: But wait, damit, there is no audio where is expressly says he was 'saddened', so I guess we all just have to disregard his comments also.


As usualy, you claim your INTERPRETATION is fact. When you learn the difference come back ok?

[Stoner]

I already said there are loonies on both sides, but not the majority of liberals think this way and you know it.


The hell they don't.Â*Â*You all get so damn excited everytime something bad happens in this country.Â*Â*It's sickening.Â*Â*Nothing makes me more ill than a bunch of uneducated libs cheering when we get attacked, root for our soldiers to die and hope our country as a whole fails just so you can bitch yet a little more about Bush.

To call you all Americans shallows the meaning.

[Elrathin]

The hell they don't. You all get so damn excited everytime something bad happens in this country. It's sickening. Nothing makes me more ill than a bunch of uneducated libs cheering when we get attacked, root for our soldiers to die and hope our country as a whole fails just so you can bitch yet a little more about Bush.

To call you all Americans shallows the meaning.


/yawn, typical rhetoric with nothing to back it up. Free Republic material.

I am a liberal and retired military. Your comments are not only personally insulting, but incorrect to the fullest.

Only insane pathetic sore losing conservatives think that the majority of liberals are Un-American or root for soldiers to be killed.

[ECW]

The hell they don't.Â*Â*You all get so damn excited everytime something bad happens in this country.Â*Â*It's sickening.Â*Â*Nothing makes me more ill than a bunch of uneducated libs cheering when we get attacked, root for our soldiers to die and hope our country as a whole fails just so you can bitch yet a little more about Bush.

To call you all Americans shallows the meaning.


/yawn, typical rhetoric with nothing to back it up.Â*Â*Free Republic material.

I am a liberal and retired military. Your comments are not only personally insulting, but incorrect to the fullest.

Only insane pathetic sore losing conservatives think that the majority of liberals are Un-American or root for soldiers to be killed.


Or someone who's grasp of reality comes from the inside of a joint and still thinks that illegal drug use and being a law & order Republican isn't a complete dichotomy.

[Waffletush]

Whoa momma!Â*Â*I was the one who said that?Â*Â*I think you need to go back and reread the thread.Â*Â*Accusing me of something someone else said is, let's see, what shall we call it....Â*Â*a lie.

Care to apologise for falsely accusing me?


My apologies, however, you need to learn the difference between a lie and a mistake.

I have already said that there are loonies on either side, but if you claim the majority of liberals believe that is insane.

Secondly since you like to use the term neolibs, who on this board is one and what in your mind is the difference between a liberal and a neolib?


Show me where I used teh term neolib and I'll answer your question. Or do you want to apoligise for falsely accusing me AGAIN, in a reply to where you already apologised for falsely accusing me of something else?

[Elrathin]

Show me where I used teh term neolib and I'll answer your question. Or do you want to apoligise for falsely accusing me AGAIN, in a reply to where you already apologised for falsely accusing me of something else?


You're right, at least Stoner was wise enough to separate the neolibs from regular liberals whereas you do not.

My apologies for giving you too much credit.

[Waffletush]

Again, show me where I EVER used the term neolib? You can't becasue I didn't. Yet all you could do when you got your ass handed to you was claim your opinion as fact and resort to personal attacks to back it up.

I could say I expected as much from you, but that would be giving you too much credit.

[Waffletush]

Now there is a guy who was happy Saddam was executed.Â*Â*:rolleyes:Â*Â*But wait, damit, there is no audio where is expressly says he was 'saddened', so I guess we all just have to disregard his comments also.


As usualy, you claim your INTERPRETATION is fact.Â*Â*When you learn the difference come back ok?


Funny. That is what you use for the basis of your arguments on nearly every thread you engage in, and it is what you are doing here. Stoner made some comments, you asked for proof, even if it was from the bowles of DU. I supply it, there the proof sits right in your face, and you fall back on your INTERPRETATION and say 'nope'.

Weak weak weak weak.

[Elrathin]

Stoner made some comments, you asked for proof, even if it was from the bowles of DU.

I asked for a quote that liberals want troops dead. Sorry, but that ain't a majority that was shown there.


I supply it, there the proof sits right in your face, and you fall back on your INTERPRETATION and say 'nope'.

Weak weak weak weak.


Your comments stated that the majority of liberals think this way and you still have yet to provide that evidence. So why don't you crawl away since you have yet to prove that claim and you interpret shit that just ain't there.

Pathetic Pathetic Pathetic.

[Waffletush]

Your comments stated that the majority of liberals think this way and you still have yet to provide that evidence.

Show me JUST ONE QUOTE where I said that.Â*Â*JUST ONE.

You cannot because I did not.Â*Â*So you reverted to your typical fashion of personal attacks.

Again, show me JUST ONE QUOTE where I said that.Â*Â*JUST ONE.

Â*Â*So why don't you crawl away since you have yet to prove that claim and you interpret shit that just ain't there.

What claim is that?Â*Â*The one where you made up, not once, but THREE TIMES now, something I never said.

It is really sad you have dug yourself in a hole, cannot admit your mistake, and just continue to make personal attacks on quotes you made up.

Pathetic Pathetic Pathetic.

Yes, you and your comments are.

Please refrain from calling the poster pathetic. Calling the argument pathetic is acceptable, just not the poster. But both of you need to cool it a bit.

Since I have shown three separate incidents to counter your claim, and you have refused to even acknowledge them.. add to that you are now making up comments out of the thin blue air and claiming I made statements that I never said (even when the evidence is overwhelmingly against you) and now have resorted to personal attacks to back up your ficticious claims... you can have fun talking with yourself.

[Elrathin]

What claim is that? The one where you made up, not once, but THREE TIMES now, something I never said.

Your claim that Sheehan was CHEERING the deaths of soldiers. Do try and keep up, I know for some conservatives this is almost impossible.


It is really sad you have dug yourself in a hole, cannot admit your mistake, and just continue to make personal attacks on quotes you made up.

You are the one that dug your hole with the claim Sheehan was cheering the deaths of soldiers.


Since I have shown three separate incidents to counter your claim, and you have refused to even acknowledge them.. add to that you are now making up comments out of the thin blue air and claiming I made statements that I never said (even when the evidence is overwhelmingly against you) and now have resorted to personal attacks to back up your ficticious claims... you can have fun talking with yourself.


Sorry, but it is YOU who has been resorting to personal attacks. I called the comments pathetic, which is attacking the post, not the poster whereas you attack the poster with personal attacks.

The incidents where YOU claimed that sheehan was cheering the deaths of soldiers was REFUTED and THAT was your interpretation that you tried to come off as fact. Get your stories straight.

You keep trying to say all liberals are un-american, which ALSO has been refuted.

Yeah, have fun talking to yourself. Most neocons do end up doing just that.

[ECW]

And the failure in Iraq continues...