| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
11 May 2007 10:19:35 AM |
| Object: |
A Lonely Inept Republican President |
From a New York Times editorial, 5/11/07:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/opinion/11fri1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Mr. Bush Alone
The difference between mainstream hawks and mainstream doves on Iraq
seems to have boiled down to two months, with House Democrats now
demanding visible progress by July while moderate Republicans are
willing to give White House policies until September, but no longer,
to show results.
Then there is President Bush, who has yet to acknowledge the reality
that Congressional Republicans and even administration officials like
Defense Secretary Robert Gates now seem to tacitly accept.
Three months into Mr. Bush’s troop escalation, there is no real
security in Baghdad and no measurable progress toward reconciliation,
while American public support for this folly has all but run out.
The really important question now facing Washington is the one Mr.
Bush still refuses to address:
how, while there is still some time left, to design an exit strategy
that contains the chaos in Iraq and minimizes the damage to United
States interests when American troops inevitably leave.
There was no shortage of reminders this week of how swiftly and
thoroughly the political landscape has shifted against the war.
Yesterday, the House voted to approve the next two months worth of war
spending, linking further money to a progress report from the
administration in July.
On Tuesday, a delegation of Republican moderates went to the White
House to warn Mr. Bush that they could not continue supporting his war
beyond September unless conditions improved markedly.
As one participant, Representative Ray Lahood of Illinois, remarked
later, “I don’t know if he’s gotten that kind of opinion before in
such a frank and no-holds-barred way.”
The session was all the more significant considering that less than
two weeks had passed since the same Republican moderates voted to
sustain Mr. Bush’s veto of a bill that set a March 2008 date for
withdrawing American combat troops.
____________________________________________________
Never mind September. How about tomorrow.
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "SilentOtto" |
|
| Title: Re: A Lonely Inept Republican President |
14 May 2007 05:58:04 PM |
|
|
On May 14, 1:58 pm, (the_blogologist) wrote:
SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 14, 6:23 am, (the_blogologist) wrote:
When we had the troops Bush Jr. was critisied for not having :-/
The coalition would have fallen apart had we invaded Iraq. Once again
the U.S. would have had to go it alone.
Speculation.
No it isn't.
The British and French both said that they wouldn't support an
invasion of Iraq and Turkey was balking at the idea.
We'd have been in the same boat we're in now.
Before the Gulf War Saddam kept his small arms and munitions in various
military instillations. After the Gulf War he moved many of them into
various cashes in the cities just so he could support an insurgency. He
also spent a lot of money hiding things from weapons inspectors.
If there's one thing that there is no shortage of in the middle east,
it's arms.
Bush Sr. understood what a mess trying to occupy Iraq would be. Too
bad he couldn't teach his bullheaded kid.
Bush Sr. suggested we finish the job and he was immediately met with
threats of impeachment from a democrat controlled congress.
Democrats in congress weren't the only ones who thought invading Iraq
was a bad idea.
Recent events have amply demonstrated why it was a bad idea.
We won the Cold War which democrats like to down play.
That's such ***** that it's not even worth commenting on...
THEN SHUT THE HELL UP!!!
Lol...
***** yoiu *****.
Make me.
Now democrats are trying to make us lose in Iraq by encouring the enemy
by letting them know they just need to keep sending soldiers home in
body bags to make us leave.
Listen up, rightard..
We aren't "losing" in Iraq. We've already "lost" in Iraq.
How so?
Insurgent groups are now so well established and enjoy such a large
degree of support that they are beyond our ability to destroy.
They are coming from countries surrounding Iraq.
Some are.
By far the majority are home grown.
The government is weak and divided and paralized.
Both the Iraqi police and the Army have been infiltrated and co-opted
by extremists.
Need I go on?
It would be much easier to set up a dictatorship, just kill off anybody
who offers any resistance whatsoever.
So much for being liberators, eh?
Rightards....
By any objective measure things are going from bad to worse.
Really? By what measure?
Start with this one.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
WAR!! WAR!! DEMOCRATS AND WAAAAR!!!!
(the DRAFT included!!)
World War I - 1917 - 116,708 KIA - Woodrow Wilson - Democrat
World War II - 1941 - 408,306 -KIA Franklin D. Roosevelt - Democrat
Korean War - 1950 - 54,246 KIA - Harry S. Truman - Democrat
Vietnam War - 1965 - 58,159 KIA - Lyndon B. Johnson - Democrat
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6545/vietnamwarstats8zn.jpg
The problem now is how to get out of the mess "W" got us into.
Carter got us into this mess by screwing up Iran.
More juvenial *****.
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3699/carterlegacy1uh.jpg- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: A Lonely Inept Republican President |
14 May 2007 06:13:41 PM |
|
|
SilentOtto wrote:
On May 14, 1:58 pm, (the_blogologist) wrote:
SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 14, 6:23 am, (the_blogologist) wrote:
When we had the troops Bush Jr. was critisied for not having :-/
The coalition would have fallen apart had we invaded Iraq. Once
again the U.S. would have had to go it alone.
Speculation.
No it isn't.
The British and French both said that they wouldn't support an
invasion of Iraq and Turkey was balking at the idea.
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent
Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither
the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the
Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the
head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into
an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing
objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have
incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was
probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we
knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect,
rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting
it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances,
furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for
handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq,
thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the
precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had
we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying
power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically
different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: A Lonely Inept Republican President |
14 May 2007 01:35:02 PM |
|
|
the_blogologist wrote:
SilentOtto <silentotto@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 14, 6:23 am, (the_blogologist) wrote:
When we had the troops Bush Jr. was critisied for not having :-/
Bush Sr. suggested we finish the job and he was immediately met with
threats of impeachment from a democrat controlled congress.
Liar.
Jesus H Christ, why do you goober lovers lie so much?
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent
Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither
the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the
Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the
head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into
an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing
objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have
incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was
probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we
knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect,
rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting
it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances,
furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for
handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq,
thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the
precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had
we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying
power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically
different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: A Lonely Inept Republican President |
14 May 2007 01:31:16 PM |
|
|
the_blogologist wrote:
SilentOtto <silentotto@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 14, 6:23 am, (the_blogologist) wrote:
When we had the troops Bush Jr. was critisied for not having :-/
The coalition would have fallen apart had we invaded Iraq. Once
again the U.S. would have had to go it alone.
Speculation.
Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent
Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither
the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the
Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the
head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into
an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing
objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have
incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was
probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we
knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect,
rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting
it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances,
furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for
handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq,
thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the
precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had
we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying
power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically
different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Carroll" |
|
| Title: Re: A Lonely Inept Republican President |
12 May 2007 07:17:03 PM |
|
|
the_blogologist wrote:
J Carroll <jcarroll@machiningsolution.com> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
KARL ROVE: TRAITOR & LIAR (Jake WK) <jakeyake@gimmejake.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 19:36:21 -0700,
(the_blogologist) wrote:
A Veteran <georgek@humboldt1.com> wrote:
who loves the "Commanding" Decider?
The "I am the decider!" statement came out of Bush's response to
some reporter trying to tell him what to do. Thanks for repeating
corporate media misinformation.
Liar. No reporter tried to tell him what to do when he made that
statement.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/18/rumsfeld/
Pressed to respond to critics who say he is ignoring the advice of
respected former military commanders, Bush vigorously stood by
Rumsfeld.
You're micing words. They were in fact trying to tell him what to
do.
No they weren't. They were telling him what he was doing was stupid.
Which is a way of telling him what he should do.
They were right but none of that supports the argument that goober's
statement was forced from him by a reporter.
It wasn't. It was forced from him by reality and circumstance.
Rumsfeld's plan pasified Afghanistan with only about 5% of the forces
the Army asked for in a country of about 25 million. If he were
under a democrat adminstration they'd be calling him a hero.
WAR!! WAR!! DEMOCRATS AND WAAAAR!!!!
(the DRAFT included!!)
Well I don't know about the "WAR!! WAR!! DEMOCRATS AND WAAAAR!!!!" hooha but
it's pretty plain that an all volunteer force ain't worth a *****.
--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "E. Bola" |
|
| Title: Re: A Lonely Inept Republican President |
11 May 2007 11:39:13 AM |
|
|
In article <2c2943dvhe0n76nt2v4loeftj2u1sa8qji@4ax.com>, Harry Hope
<rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
From a New York Times editorial, 5/11/07:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/opinion/11fri1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=sl
ogin
Mr. Bush Alone
The difference between mainstream hawks and mainstream doves on Iraq
seems to have boiled down to two months, with House Democrats now
demanding visible progress by July while moderate Republicans are
willing to give White House policies until September, but no longer,
to show results.
Then there is President Bush, who has yet to acknowledge the reality
that Congressional Republicans and even administration officials like
Defense Secretary Robert Gates now seem to tacitly accept.
Three months into Mr. Bushâs troop escalation, there is no real
security in Baghdad and no measurable progress toward reconciliation,
while American public support for this folly has all but run out.
The really important question now facing Washington is the one Mr.
Bush still refuses to address:
how, while there is still some time left, to design an exit strategy
that contains the chaos in Iraq and minimizes the damage to United
States interests when American troops inevitably leave.
There was no shortage of reminders this week of how swiftly and
thoroughly the political landscape has shifted against the war.
Yesterday, the House voted to approve the next two months worth of war
spending, linking further money to a progress report from the
administration in July.
On Tuesday, a delegation of Republican moderates went to the White
House to warn Mr. Bush that they could not continue supporting his war
beyond September unless conditions improved markedly.
As one participant, Representative Ray Lahood of Illinois, remarked
later, ãI donât know if heâs gotten that kind of opinion before in
such a frank and no-holds-barred way.ä
The session was all the more significant considering that less than
two weeks had passed since the same Republican moderates voted to
sustain Mr. Bushâs veto of a bill that set a March 2008 date for
withdrawing American combat troops.
____________________________________________________
Never mind September. How about tomorrow.
Harry
-------------------------------------------------------------
"it is time for the American people to wise up.
From the very beginning, the so-called war on terror
was viewed by the Bush crowd as a magical smoke screen,
a political gift from the gods
that could be endlessly manipulated
to justify all kinds of policies and behavior --
including thesenseless war in Iraq --
that otherwise would never have been tolerated
by the Americanpeople.
--Mark Morford
--------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
