Obama: Taliban and al-Qaida must be stopped

[Yurt]

Obama: Taliban and al-Qaida must be stopped

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday ordered 4,000 more military troops into Afghanistan, vowing to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" the terrorist al-Qaida network in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan.

In a war that still has no end in sight, Obama said the fresh infusion of U.S. forces is designed to bolster the Afghan army and turn up the heat on terrorists that he said are plotting new attacks against Americans. The plan takes aim at terrorist havens in Pakistan and challenges the government there and in Afghanistan to show more results.

Obama called the situation in the region "increasingly perilous" more than seven years after the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan.

"If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged," Obama said, "that country will again be a base for terrorists."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090327/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_afghanistan;_ylt=At73BIUgsxn36gQTAaMZhWwDW7o F

i agree with obama on this. i don't understand why bush did not send more troops there. its interesting that when bush sought to do something like this the libs were cried foul and protest, obama does it and not a peep.

[Trigg]

[QUOTE]i agree with obama on this. i don't understand why bush did not send more troops there. its interesting that when bush sought to do something like this the libs were cried foul and protest, obama does it and not a peep.


Wasn't it gabby who said she wouldn't support Obama if he didn't get the troops out in 6 months, LIKE HE PROMISED over and over and over??????????

She's been suspiciously quiet lately. I wonder if his decision, to not only continue our presence there but ADD troops, is the reason for her absence.

[bullypulpit]

Obama: Taliban and al-Qaida must be stopped

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Friday ordered 4,000 more military troops into Afghanistan, vowing to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" the terrorist al-Qaida network in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan.

In a war that still has no end in sight, Obama said the fresh infusion of U.S. forces is designed to bolster the Afghan army and turn up the heat on terrorists that he said are plotting new attacks against Americans. The plan takes aim at terrorist havens in Pakistan and challenges the government there and in Afghanistan to show more results.

Obama called the situation in the region "increasingly perilous" more than seven years after the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan.

"If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged," Obama said, "that country will again be a base for terrorists."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090327/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_afghanistan;_ylt=At73BIUgsxn36gQTAaMZhWwDW7o F

i agree with obama on this. i don't understand why bush did not send more troops there. its interesting that when bush sought to do something like this the libs were cried foul and protest, obama does it and not a peep.

What's not to understand? Bush was more interested in working off his chubby for Saddam and his non-existent WMD's than he was in bringing the REAL perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. Or had you forgotten that already?

[Yurt]

What's not to understand? Bush was more interested in working off his chubby for Saddam and his non-existent WMD's than he was in bringing the REAL perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. Or had you forgotten that already?

:lame2:

[Kathianne]

What's not to understand? Bush was more interested in working off his chubby for Saddam and his non-existent WMD's than he was in bringing the REAL perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. Or had you forgotten that already?

So Bully, at what point of problems does this become Obama's 'chubby?' Gross though that term be. To think we don't have the will, well you underestimate the backing Obama or the left in general will get, considering what has been given.

[April15]

What Barrack is doing in Afghanistan should have taken place 7 years ago. This is where the WTC attackers were organized and where they will be found and rooted out by the finest military in the world.
That the military got sidetracked in Iraq was a travesty as Saddam was a stablizing force in the mideast.

[Kathianne]

What Barrack is doing in Afghanistan should have taken place 7 years ago. This is where the WTC attackers were organized and where they will be found and rooted out by the finest military in the world.
That the military got sidetracked in Iraq was a travesty as Saddam was a stablizing force in the mideast.

considering that as of today, this administration is sounding more and more like the previous, we may well find out why they made the choices they did. Afghanistan is not Iraq, not in potential or ability to 'control.'

You Obama supporters know that as well as I and are quite concerned, as well you should be.

[April15]

considering that as of today, this administration is sounding more and more like the previous, we may well find out why they made the choices they did. Afghanistan is not Iraq, not in potential or ability to 'control.'

You Obama supporters know that as well as I and are quite concerned, as well you should be.Afghanistan is a much more undefined territory.

[Yurt]

What Barrack is doing in Afghanistan should have taken place 7 years ago. This is where the WTC attackers were organized and where they will be found and rooted out by the finest military in the world.
That the military got sidetracked in Iraq was a travesty as Saddam was a stablizing force in the mideast.

really.....saddam was a "stabilizing" force in the middle east....hmmmm, i wonder how those who actually live in the ME and/or lived under saddam would take your statement....probably tell you to get off your ass and visit the ME and see how "stabilizing" saddam was. your statement is myopic.

and while i think bush should have sent more troops to afghanistan, tell me this, has OBL or his cohorts been able to operate as freely in afghanistan as they did before we took them out of power? yes or no. did bush's command lesson or strengthen obl/aq/taliban?

[Kathianne]

Afghanistan is a much more undefined territory.

Very good job of restating the obvious. :cheers2:

[April15]

really.....saddam was a "stabilizing" force in the middle east....hmmmm, i wonder how those who actually live in the ME and/or lived under saddam would take your statement....probably tell you to get off your ass and visit the ME and see how "stabilizing" saddam was. your statement is myopic.

and while i think bush should have sent more troops to afghanistan, tell me this, has OBL or his cohorts been able to operate as freely in afghanistan as they did before we took them out of power? yes or no. did bush's command lesson or strengthen obl/aq/taliban?Strengthened! The taliban is back in power and the suicide killers are just as many if not increasing.
Saddam stabilized the area by being in power and a presumed to "take no prisoners" mentality. Iran would not be where they are if Saddam was in Iraq!

[Missileman]

Saddam was a stablizing force in the mideast.

:lmao:

Yeah, right. The invasion of Kuwait had a calming effect...as well as the scuds launched at Israel.

[moderate democrat]

:lmao:

Yeah, right. The invasion of Kuwait had a calming effect...as well as the scuds launched at Israel.

Certainly not stabilizing in any warm and fuzzy kumbaya singing sort of way. Saddam, as much of an asshole as he was, kept Iranian regional aspirations and influence in check, and kept islamic extremists from gaining a foothold in his country. It would not have been all that bad, from a realpolitik perspective, to allow him to remain in power continuing to do those things well, while we concentrated on Al Qaeda and Afghanistan and reducing the clout of islamic extremists regionally rather than tying so many assets down in Iraq.

[Yurt]

Strengthened! The taliban is back in power and the suicide killers are just as many if not increasing.
Saddam stabilized the area by being in power and a presumed to "take no prisoners" mentality. Iran would not be where they are if Saddam was in Iraq!

are you serious? the taliban is back in power as if the us never took them out of power?????

suicide bombers means nothing. who is to say that suicide bombers would not exist with or without the taliban? or are you saying that you support the taliban's government, no rights, they have absolute authority and killing you or cutting your hand off is ok.....

saddam didn't stabilize the ME...do you even realize that iraq does not compromise the entire ME.....you have to be kidding about iran.....thats funny....as if saddam being there and according to you, iran now is stable. iran is a good thing.

unbelievable.

[April15]

are you serious? the taliban is back in power as if the us never took them out of power?????

suicide bombers means nothing. who is to say that suicide bombers would not exist with or without the taliban? or are you saying that you support the taliban's government, no rights, they have absolute authority and killing you or cutting your hand off is ok.....

saddam didn't stabilize the ME...do you even realize that iraq does not compromise the entire ME.....you have to be kidding about iran.....thats funny....as if saddam being there and according to you, iran now is stable. iran is a good thing.

unbelievable.

You need to re read the post. You did not understand what I said.

[bullypulpit]

:lame2:

No, just true.

[bullypulpit]

really.....saddam was a "stabilizing" force in the middle east....hmmmm, i wonder how those who actually live in the ME and/or lived under saddam would take your statement....probably tell you to get off your ass and visit the ME and see how "stabilizing" saddam was. your statement is myopic.

Ummm...Yeah. He was an effective counter to Iran. Once he was gone, Iran had a free hand in the region. Why else did the Reagan and Bush the Elder's administrations throw their support to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war? With Saddam out of the picture and with Iraq's government in a shambles, the Sunni leadership is cozying up to Sunni dominated Iran.


and while i think bush should have sent more troops to afghanistan, tell me this, has OBL or his cohorts been able to operate as freely in afghanistan as they did before we took them out of power? yes or no. did bush's command lesson or strengthen obl/aq/taliban?

A <a href=http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0718/p99s01-duts.html>July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate</a> stated that:

<blockquote>... Al Qaeda has reorganized to pre-9/11 strength and is preparing for a major US strike has sparked debate among government officials and observers about the Bush administration's foreign policy and counterterrorism efforts. The National Intelligence Estimate assessment indicates that the Islamic terrorist organization's rise has been bolstered by the Iraq war and the failure to counter extremism in Pakistan's tribal areas.</blockquote>

As a result, Al Qaeda operates freely in the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan with the Taliban in resurgence as well...

<blockquote>The Taliban resurgence can be measured quantitatively or qualitatively.

With respect to the former:
-- Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified earlier this year that suicide bombings were up 27% in 2007 over 2006. He should have added that they are up 600% over 2005; and that all insurgent attacks are up 400% over 2005.
-- The UN Secretary General reported last month the looting of 40 convoys delivering food for the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2007, 130 attacks against humanitarian programs, 40 relief workers killed and another 89 abducted.
-- There were 8000 conflict-related deaths in 2007, 1500 of them civilian.

On the qualitative side, the Serena Hotel in the center of Kabul, where I stayed last fall, was the subject of a fierce attack with automatic weapons and explosives in mid-January during the stay there by the Norwegian Foreign Minister. The Afghan opposition spokesman with whom I met during my visit, Sayed Mustafa Kazemi, went to inaugurate a sugar factory in Northern Afghanistan a few days later and he and around 70 others were killed in a suicide bombing. Probably the single worst suicide bombing since 2001 occurred in February of this year with dozens killed and nearly a hundred wounded in the southern province of Kandahar.

The Taliban and associated groups are using terror tactics to spread fear far from their heartland in the southern and eastern provinces bordering Pakistan, where NATO and US forces battle them in nearly daily combat. - <a href=http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5370>ICG</a></blockquote>

So, to answer your question...Yes, the Taliban and Al Qaeda operate very nearly as freely now as they did before the US invasion of Afghanistan, and yes, <a href=http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1173>neglect of the situation in Afghanistan by the Bush administration</a> has strengthened the hand of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the region.

[bullypulpit]

<center><h1>CORRECTION</h1></center>

<blockquote>the Sunni leadership is cozying up to Sunni dominated Iran</blockquote>

From the previous post should read as:

<blockquote>the Shi'a leadership is cozying up to Shi'a dominated Iran</blockquote>

[April15]

Thank you BP for explaining what should be common knowledge.

[bullypulpit]

Thank you BP for explaining what should be common knowledge.

The sad thing is that it IS common knowledge. The GOP, its apologists and slavish supporters prefer to ignore it as it doesn't fit their world view which, incidentally, has little to do with reality.

[moderate democrat]

typical republican responses to the fact that the Iraq war was a strategic mistake are really fairly predictable. Either they claim that invading Iraq was the absolute best thing America ever did, or they claim that yeah, it was a msitake but they couldn't have done it without democrat's support, or they just avoid threads discussing it... which seems to be the case here.

[PostmodernProphet]

are you folks seriously arguing that Pakistan and Afghanistan were not equally the focus of Muslim extremism before the Iraq war?.....are you saying they have not been driven BACK into their mountain strongholds over the last five years?......you make it sound as if the war in Iraq has created the problem instead of reduced it......

[moderate democrat]

are you folks seriously arguing that Pakistan and Afghanistan were not equally the focus of Muslim extremism before the Iraq war?.....are you saying they have not been driven BACK into their mountain strongholds over the last five years?......you make it sound as if the war in Iraq has created the problem instead of reduced it......

was Iraq a "focus of muslim extremism" before we invaded?

[PostmodernProphet]

was Iraq a "focus of muslim extremism" before we invaded?

no, it was a focus of Saddam's extremism......

[Nukeman]

no, it was a focus of Saddam's extremism......

PMP I have to go with the loones on this one for now. Saddam kept control of a VERY explosive country for years, I will admit it was through a IRON FIST, but that seems to be all some people understand. The more extreme the Muslims become the more it takes to keep them under control. When you have a culture that lives and thrives on "evil" acts than that is the only thing they understand.

don't get me wrong Saddam was a vile evil man but he didn't play this "politicle correctness" BS and kept the extremest down........ IMHO

[PostmodernProphet]

PMP I have to go with the loones on this one for now. Saddam kept control of a VERY explosive country for years, I will admit it was through a IRON FIST, but that seems to be all some people understand. The more extreme the Muslims become the more it takes to keep them under control. When you have a culture that lives and thrives on "evil" acts than that is the only thing they understand.

don't get me wrong Saddam was a vile evil man but he didn't play this "politicle correctness" BS and kept the extremest down........ IMHO

we would have had to deal with Saddaam in 2001 or in 2011 or in 2021....better it happened before he was able to rebuild his military operation.......

[Yurt]

The sad thing is that it IS common knowledge. The GOP, its apologists and slavish supporters prefer to ignore it as it doesn't fit their world view which, incidentally, has little to do with reality.

the lame thing is how many of you guys ignore all the people in your party who supported the effort to oust saddam and also said that saddam had wmd's. but it is all about blaming bush for everything, you guys found a scape goat and refuse to acknowledge any dem mistakes. unbelievably partisan and sadly not the truth.

[moderate democrat]

no, it was a focus of Saddam's extremism......

it was not the focus of the people who attacked us.

And Saddam was extreme only in his meanness.... ba'athists are pretty left of center moderate pan-arabists historically speaking. He was not a real and present danger to the United States.

[moderate democrat]

we would have had to deal with Saddaam in 2001 or in 2011 or in 2021....better it happened before he was able to rebuild his military operation.......

except it had nothing to do with confronting the forces who attacked us.

and even if he HAD rebuilt his military operation at some point in the future, we would have been capable of mowing it down in short order whenever we confronted it.

[moderate democrat]

the lame thing is how many of you guys ignore all the people in your party who supported the effort to oust saddam and also said that saddam had wmd's. but it is all about blaming bush for everything, you guys found a scape goat and refuse to acknowledge any dem mistakes. unbelievably partisan and sadly not the truth.

every dem who spoke about Saddam's WMD's was on my shitlist. NONE of them who voted FOR the use of force resolution have ever gotten my vote for anything and won't until they apologize for that vote - which many have.

Some Dems certainly blustered about Saddam, but NONE of them advocated invading, conquering and occupying Iraq as a solution to the annoyance.

[PostmodernProphet]

it was not the focus of the people who attacked us.

And Saddam was extreme only in his meanness.... ba'athists are pretty left of center moderate pan-arabists historically speaking. He was not a real and present danger to the United States.

he was a real and present danger to the Middle East and therefore to the entire world......which, we used to be a part of.....

[PostmodernProphet]

except it had nothing to do with confronting the forces who attacked us.

and even if he HAD rebuilt his military operation at some point in the future, we would have been capable of mowing it down in short order whenever we confronted it.

you're right....we should have waited until he had a nuclear bomb....then we could have mowed him down like we're doing with North Korea.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Some Dems certainly blustered about Saddam, but NONE of them advocated invading, conquering and occupying Iraq as a solution to the annoyance.

perhaps, but they voted for what we actually DID......which has nothing to do with your bullshit characterization of it.....

[moderate democrat]

perhaps, but they voted for what we actually DID......which has nothing to do with your bullshit characterization of it.....

a minority of congressional democrats did vote for the use of force.

the majority did not.

[moderate democrat]

you're right....we should have waited until he had a nuclear bomb....then we could have mowed him down like we're doing with North Korea.....

Iran was always closer to getting a nuke than Iraq was...and so was NKorea.

Iraq was a bad strategic decision, imo.

[moderate democrat]

he was a real and present danger to the Middle East and therefore to the entire world......which, we used to be a part of.....

he was NOT a real and present danger to the middle east...certainly no more so that Syria or Iran....

the point is: we had been attacked. Americans were supportive of efforts to find and defeat our attackers...they were NOT supportive of the invasion of Iraq until team Bush LIED about the existence of an ongoing operational connection between Saddam and AQ, and LIED about the certainty of the existence of WMD stockpiles... and conflated those two lies to make the case for immediate war against Iraq.

[Yurt]

he was NOT a real and present danger to the middle east...certainly no more so that Syria or Iran....

the point is: we had been attacked. Americans were supportive of efforts to find and defeat our attackers...they were NOT supportive of the invasion of Iraq until team Bush LIED about the existence of an ongoing operational connection between Saddam and AQ, and LIED about the certainty of the existence of WMD stockpiles... and conflated those two lies to make the case for immediate war against Iraq.

if bush lied, then so did your shitlist of dems and virtually every world leader. this blame game on bush lying is old and boring. you guys act like it was only bush who claimed saddam had wmds...you know full well that is not true.

[Yurt]

every dem who spoke about Saddam's WMD's was on my shitlist. NONE of them who voted FOR the use of force resolution have ever gotten my vote for anything and won't until they apologize for that vote - which many have.

Some Dems certainly blustered about Saddam, but NONE of them advocated invading, conquering and occupying Iraq as a solution to the annoyance.

this has been argued ad nauseum and you have been provided with proof that there were in fact dems who wanted saddam gone, conquered and regime change....and we have also discussed that dems really didn't say boo about iraq until 2004....they waited until iraq became unpopular, that is cowardly and absolutely shows they supported the invasion by their silence.

[Kathianne]

I don't know if invading Iraq was the right thing or not. I know it was handled badly by the end of 2003. I also know that it had been turned around by the time Obama received the finish up. That should have been accomplished by Spring of 2004 at the latest, but wasn't. Can't blame anyone by the administration for that.

Now that the tactics are finished, what did it accomplish? Well it certainly was the 'flypaper' that many thought it would be. Certainly we defeated more al-Queda and wannabee jihadis in Iraq than in Afghanistan. The Anbar Awakening didn't just 'happen', it was a planned effort by the military, the newly trained Iraqis, and the Iraqi government. It involved the leaders, especially the religious leaders of the area:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/05/anbar_rising.php

It may have been the wrong war, but it helped to keep the leadership and jihadis busy, time they couldn't spend waging their acts here or elsewhere.

[moderate democrat]

this has been argued ad nauseum and you have been provided with proof that there were in fact dems who wanted saddam gone, conquered and regime change....and we have also discussed that dems really didn't say boo about iraq until 2004....they waited until iraq became unpopular, that is cowardly and absolutely shows they supported the invasion by their silence.

I do not dispute that there were dems who wanted Saddam gone...I DO dispute that many - if any - were calling for invasion and conquest by American forces as a means to accomplish that. I know many democrats who have ALWAYS spoken out about Iraq since the very day we invaded, myself being one. I NEVER supported this war and am proud of that.

[Yurt]

I do not dispute that there were dems who wanted Saddam gone...I DO dispute that many - if any - were calling for invasion and conquest by American forces as a means to accomplish that. I know many democrats who have ALWAYS spoken out about Iraq since the very day we invaded, myself being one. I NEVER supported this war and am proud of that.

i know that very well, using your logic, that is why you wanted it to fail, the same you say for people who do not support obama's plans, you accuse them of wanting obama and this country to fail. you wanted the US to fail.

[PostmodernProphet]

a minority of congressional democrats did vote for the use of force.

the majority did not.

29 Democratic Senators voted yes, 21 Democratic Senators voted no....

81 Democratic Representatives voted yes, 126 Democratic Representatives voted no....

[PostmodernProphet]

Iran was always closer to getting a nuke than Iraq was...and so was NKorea.

Iran was not under UN sanctions and orders to cooperate with weapons inspections programs that were not being complied with......

[PostmodernProphet]

he was NOT a real and present danger to the middle east...

really?....though he had already started two wars in the Middle East and was purchasing arms even while under UN sanctions to disarm?......

[moderate democrat]

really?....though he had already started two wars in the Middle East and was purchasing arms even while under UN sanctions to disarm?......

he was certainly NOT a present danger.... go read what Bush's own Secretary of State had to say about Saddam in a press conference in Cairo back before 9/11. Powell clearly stated that Saddam was incapable of projecting military power outside his own borders.

[moderate democrat]

29 Democratic Senators voted yes, 21 Democratic Senators voted no....

81 Democratic Representatives voted yes, 126 Democratic Representatives voted no....

29+21+81+126= 257

29+81= 110

110 is less than half of 257

I was unaware that you were so mathematically challenged. sorry

[moderate democrat]

Iran was not under UN sanctions and orders to cooperate with weapons inspections programs that were not being complied with......
and Iraq was COMPLYING with weapons inspections programs when Bush told the inspectors to get out of the country because he was going to INVADE it.

duh.

[PostmodernProphet]

he was certainly NOT a present danger.... go read what Bush's own Secretary of State had to say about Saddam in a press conference in Cairo back before 9/11. Powell clearly stated that Saddam was incapable of projecting military power outside his own borders.

the only ones who thought he wasn't a present danger were the Democrats who voted against military action......and we all know what fools Democrats are when it comes to foreign policy......

[PostmodernProphet]

29+21+81+126= 257

29+81= 110

110 is less than half of 257



yep, those are the fools I'm talking about.....

[PostmodernProphet]

and Iraq was COMPLYING with weapons inspections programs when Bush told the inspectors to get out of the country because he was going to INVADE it.

duh.

reeeally.....that would come as a surprise to the Blix, who reported to the UN at the time the war started that Iraq WASN'T complying.......oops, I forgot....you're a liberal....you don't do fact......you just do fucked.....

[bullypulpit]

are you folks seriously arguing that Pakistan and Afghanistan were not equally the focus of Muslim extremism before the Iraq war?.....are you saying they have not been driven BACK into their mountain strongholds over the last five years?......you make it sound as if the war in Iraq has created the problem instead of reduced it......

After the disastrous Russian invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, The Taliban ruled that benighted nation, and permitted Al Qaeda to set up a base of operations there. Pakistan has been walking a tightrope between secular government and Islamic fundamentalism for decades.

After the initial military actions in Afghanistan following 9/11, Taliban and Al Qaeda forces were allowed to flee to the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There, according to the 2007 NIE they reconstituted their forces and organizations to levels that equaled, or surpassed, pre-9/11 levels.

The war in Iraq did not "reduce" the problems posed by the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It exacerbated them. Like a child with ADD, the Bush administration allowed itself to be distracted from the task of bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice in order to pursue the invasion and occupation of Iraq...A nation which had nothing to do with 9/11...had no WMD's which was the administration's <i>casus belli</i>...and diverted troops and resources which should have been properly used to finish the job ib Afghanistan.

I don't have to argue anything. The history of the Bush administrations failures in Afghanistan and Iraq speaks for itself.

[bullypulpit]

no, it was a focus of Saddam's extremism......

Which had exactly WHAT to do with bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice?

[bullypulpit]

the lame thing is how many of you guys ignore all the people in your party who supported the effort to oust saddam and also said that saddam had wmd's. but it is all about blaming bush for everything, you guys found a scape goat and refuse to acknowledge any dem mistakes. unbelievably partisan and sadly not the truth.

Ummm... not so much. Afraid of being branded "un-American" and "unpatriotic" by the GOP, the Democrats put political expediency ahead of principled action. Their, and that of all who blindly supported the Bush administration in this matter, moral cowardice will be long remembered.

[bullypulpit]

the only ones who thought he wasn't a present danger were the Democrats who voted against military action......and we all know what fools Democrats are when it comes to foreign policy......

<blockquote>Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

...Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - <a href=http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=229>ITV</a></blockquote>

And on the foreign policy front...

<blockquote>By overreaching in Iraq, alienating important allies, and allowing the war on terrorism to overshadow all other national priorities, Bush has gotten the United States bogged down in an unsuccessful war, overstretched the military, and broken the domestic bank. Washington now lacks the reservoir of international legitimacy, resources, and domestic support necessary to pursue other key national interests. - <a href=http://www.foreignaffairs.org/articles/61734/philip-h-gordon/the-end-of-the-bush-revolution>Foreign Affairs</a></blockquote>

Consider yourself schooled.

[moderate democrat]

the only ones who thought he wasn't a present danger were the Democrats who voted against military action......and we all know what fools Democrats are when it comes to foreign policy......


considering the FACT that we now know that he didn't HAVE the stockpiles of WMD's that Team Bush lied about, and considering the FACT that we know that he didn't HAVE any connection to Al Qaeda, it would seem that those democrats who voted against it knew what the hell THEY were talking about, and the rest of you yahoos were just blindly following a fool.

[moderate democrat]

reeeally.....that would come as a surprise to the Blix, who reported to the UN at the time the war started that Iraq WASN'T complying.......oops, I forgot....you're a liberal....you don't do fact......you just do fucked.....
:link:

[moderate democrat]

yep, those are the fools I'm talking about.....

we are in agreement then, that the 110 democrats who voted for the use of force were certainly MUCH more foolish than the 147 who did not.

[Kathianne]

Weird in the past 24 hours, over 3 boards, seems the new mantra of the left is to fight the 2000 election and justification of Iraq war over again. Gee, wonder if that means they are trying to divert attention away from this administration, what 70 days into? Couldn't even make it to 100 days! :laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

The war in Iraq did not "reduce" the problems posed by the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It exacerbated them.

odd then that at one time Al Qaeda acted freely in the entire region, in truth acted even in New York....and now they act freely only in the tribal regions in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan....I consider that a reduction.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Which had exactly WHAT to do with bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice?

???...nothing at all....it had to do with stabilizing the Middle East......

[PostmodernProphet]

Consider yourself schooled.

consider yourself irrelevant....we are talking about 2003 when the war began, not 2001......

[PostmodernProphet]

considering the FACT that we now know that he didn't HAVE the stockpiles of WMD's that Team Bush lied about, and considering the FACT that we know that he didn't HAVE any connection to Al Qaeda, it would seem that those democrats who voted against it knew what the hell THEY were talking about, and the rest of you yahoos were just blindly following a fool.

NOW know.....people act on what they know at the time, not what they know now.....don't pretend to me that the Democrats who voted against it at the time did so because they knew something no one else knew.....they voted against it because of partisan politics not superior knowledge....the same partisan politics that makes you say Bush lied when you know for a fact it isn't true.....liberal liars......

[PostmodernProphet]

:link:

I have posted that link so many fucking times I am NOT going to waste my time doing it again.....google "Blix final report UN text" and read the thing this time, you Total Waste.....obviously you've never bothered to read it the other times I linked it.....

[PostmodernProphet]

we are in agreement then, that the 110 democrats who voted for the use of force were certainly MUCH more foolish than the 147 who did not.
they were nearly as foolish as you.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Weird in the past 24 hours, over 3 boards, seems the new mantra of the left is to fight the 2000 election and justification of Iraq war over again. Gee, wonder if that means they are trying to divert attention away from this administration, what 70 days into? Couldn't even make it to 100 days! :laugh2:

I think it's because the left is beginning to realize they were idiots for supporting Obama.....they are trying to regain their equilibrium by harkening back to the days when they thought they were superior.....unfortunately, they don't realize those days never existed apart from their own imaginations.....

[moderate democrat]

I have posted that link so many fucking times I am NOT going to waste my time doing it again.....google "Blix final report UN text" and read the thing this time, you Total Waste.....obviously you've never bothered to read it the other times I linked it.....


To take a second example, while I have at no time suggested that the war was a foregone conclusion, I have stated as my impression that US patience with further inspection seemed to run out at about the same time as our Iraqi counterparts began to be proactive in proposing new investigations, supplying more explanations and names. I did not imply that there was any causal link. Had I looked for one, I would have assumed that the accelerating Iraqi activity was prompted by the feeling that time was running out. Indeed, both Dr. ElBaradei and I said as much to our counterparts at meetings in Baghdad.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/recent%20items.html

[moderate democrat]

they were nearly as foolish as you.....

king of the one liners, aren't you?:lol:

[moderate democrat]

NOW know.....people act on what they know at the time, not what they know now.....don't pretend to me that the Democrats who voted against it at the time did so because they knew something no one else knew.....they voted against it because of partisan politics not superior knowledge....the same partisan politics that makes you say Bush lied when you know for a fact it isn't true.....liberal liars......


they voted against the use of force because they believed it was flawed foreign policy. they were right.

I DO know that when team Bush used the phrase "THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SADDAM HAS AMASSED STOCKPILES OF WMD'S", that was a lie...because there WAS doubt... and that doubt was ALWAYS present. To claim that it did not exist was a lie. period.

[moderate democrat]

consider yourself irrelevant....we are talking about 2003 when the war began, not 2001......


so... in those two years, Iraq was somehow able to reconstitute a military capability that they had been unable to reconstitute in the preceeding decade? What proof do you have for that?

[emmett]

Ah.......................How many members of the "house of cards" were killed or captured in Iraq? The country was saturated with Al-Queda.

Hussein violated the treaty! Hundreds of times. This in itself was grounds for occupation. He denied weapons inspectors access to areas he had sworn to allow them in so as to save his ass after illegally occupying Kuwait. Oh ...did y'all forget about the innocent little country Kuwait. Was it justified to help them or was that a big lie by Republicans too?

I wish we weren't involved in the Iraq thing too. I am a Libertarian, as you know, and I don't necessarily like the idea of being the world's police officer but I am a reaslist and know what Saddam really was.

Where is all the dissention on the part of Libs on the Afgan thing?

Iran told Obama to "Suck one" the other day. Where is a lib that now admits he had no idea how to conduct the dialogue with them he claimed would work?

Every time Obama opens his mouth to assure us he has a plan for the economy the stock market stumbles and falls.

Answers to these questions don't contain the words George Bush.

[moderate democrat]

Ah.......................How many members of the "house of cards" were killed or captured in Iraq? The country was saturated with Al-Queda.

Hussein violated the treaty! Hundreds of times. This in itself was grounds for occupation. He denied weapons inspectors access to areas he had sworn to allow them in so as to save his ass after illegally occupying Kuwait. Oh ...did y'all forget about the innocent little country Kuwait. Was it justified to help them or was that a big lie by Republicans too?

I wish we weren't involved in the Iraq thing too. I am a Libertarian, as you know, and I don't necessarily like the idea of being the world's police officer but I am a reaslist and know what Saddam really was.

Where is all the dissention on the part of Libs on the Afgan thing?

Iran told Obama to "Suck one" the other day. Where is a lib that now admits he had no idea how to conduct the dialogue with them he claimed would work?

Every time Obama opens his mouth to assure us he has a plan for the economy the stock market stumbles and falls.

Answers to these questions don't contain the words George Bush.

that is totally bogus... Iraq was NOT saturated with AQ when Saddam was in power.

Re:Afganistan... I was all for Bush's initial moves into that country and I am all for Obama trying to finish what Bush forgot about finishing.

Re: Ian... You are being moronic to expect Iran to immediately fall over themselves accepting Obama's first indication of a changed tone in Washington.

Latest polling shows that Americans do NOT blame Obama for the mess the economy is in, btw.

[emmett]

My "moronic" belief is in all actuality true my fine diplomatic genius friend. Obama should never even have addressed them. Silence is golden in this instance. He played his first card way too soon. He has done nothing to "stop Iran from progress toward building a Nuclear Bomb" which in Denver he told that huge crowd he would do. Find the link yourself, you probably enjoy that speech...you shouldn't mind watching it again to find that part.

Bush wiped through Afghanistan (proper spelling) like windshield wipers wipe water. It also forced the enemy to Iraq where it was all but destoyed. The leftovers trickled back there. They are being dealt with now.

Irag WAS saturated with AQ. Many were killed or captured there. It is not "bogus".

There is no changed tone in Washington concerning Iran. We weren't dealing with them under bush and we aren't dealing with them under Obama. No change!

So nice to hear from you this morning MD, have a nice day will ya!

[emmett]

You forgot to address the stock market question!

[PostmodernProphet]

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/recent%20items.html

from your link, only a month before the war....


How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

[PostmodernProphet]

king of the one liners, aren't you?:lol:

I don't do badly with paragraphs, either.....

[PostmodernProphet]

they voted against the use of force because they believed it was flawed foreign policy. they were right.

I DO know that when team Bush used the phrase "THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SADDAM HAS AMASSED STOCKPILES OF WMD'S", that was a lie...because there WAS doubt... and that doubt was ALWAYS present. To claim that it did not exist was a lie. period.

read the quote of Blix, only a month before the war began two posts up......you are the lie.....

[PostmodernProphet]

so... in those two years, Iraq was somehow able to reconstitute a military capability that they had been unable to reconstitute in the preceeding decade? What proof do you have for that?

the final report to the UN from the weapons inspection team stated that Saddam had no intention of abandoning his plans for the region and maintained an intention to rebuild his military as soon as sanctions were ended......and we now know that he was buying small arms and munitions from both the French and the Russians during the period of sanctions....what do you think "reconstituting" means?......

[Yurt]

it takes some kind of "special" to believe only bush said iraq had wmd's...

yes, that is the truth, ONLY bush lied, no one else in the whole world said iraq had wmd's and that saddam must be removed/regime change....nope, certainly no former US president

[emmett]

1.2.............3........4...........5............ .6..............7..........8.........9...10

Knockout!

[PostmodernProphet]

Re: Ian... You are being moronic to expect Iran to immediately fall over themselves accepting Obama's first indication of a changed tone in Washington.


no, what was moronic was Obama believing he would be able to change how Iran feels about the US by willing to sit across a table and share tea with them.....

[emmett]

No hitting while he's down Yurt! That's piling on! lol

[moderate democrat]

from your link, only a month before the war....

and from that link...here is what Blix said:

"One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist"

which is precisely what Bush did.

oops.

[moderate democrat]

it takes some kind of "special" to believe only bush said iraq had wmd's...

yes, that is the truth, ONLY bush lied, no one else in the whole world said iraq had wmd's and that saddam must be removed/regime change....nope, certainly no former US president


when have I EVER said that Bush was the only one who said that Iraq had WMD's?

NO OTHER former president sent 150K troops into Iraq.

and, regardless of your sniping little neg rep, the statement "THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SADDAM HAS STOCKPILES OF WMD'S" IS, in fact, a lie. Because there WAS doubt...within our own intelligence agencies... ANY doubt there makes the statement that there IS no doubt a knowingly false statement.

[moderate democrat]

no, what was moronic was Obama believing he would be able to change how Iran feels about the US by willing to sit across a table and share tea with them.....

where in the world did you get the idea that Obama believed that merely expressing the first sign of a willingness to engage in constructive diplomacy with Iran would, in and of itself, change how Iran feels about the US?

Maybe you have a link?

[moderate democrat]

the final report to the UN from the weapons inspection team stated that Saddam had no intention of abandoning his plans for the region and maintained an intention to rebuild his military as soon as sanctions were ended......and we now know that he was buying small arms and munitions from both the French and the Russians during the period of sanctions....what do you think "reconstituting" means?......

I think reconstituting requires some tangible evidence that some former capability had, in fact, been RECONSTITUTED. "Intentions" do not equate to "reconstitution". The actual "unreconstituted" "capabilities", or lack thereof, of Saddam's military were proven by how quickly our forces totally routed them in the early days of the Iraq war. There was no reconstituted military might...there was the same paper tiger that Colin Powell talked about in Cairo months before 9/11. There were no stockpiles of WMD's and Hans Blix told us it was wrong to assume that they existed... and there was NEVER any operational connection between Saddam and OBL.

[PostmodernProphet]

The actual "unreconstituted" "capabilities", or lack thereof, of Saddam's military were proven by how quickly our forces totally routed them in the early days of the Iraq war. .

???....so, is it your belief that the insurgents that continued hostilities for the following three years had nothing to do with Iraq's military?......

[PostmodernProphet]

where in the world did you get the idea that Obama believed that merely expressing the first sign of a willingness to engage in constructive diplomacy with Iran would, in and of itself, change how Iran feels about the US?

Maybe you have a link?

apparently you paid no attention to what Obama said during the campaign......obviously, since you voted for him.......

[PostmodernProphet]

and from that link...here is what Blix said:

"One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist"

which is precisely what Bush did.

oops.

which changes nothing about what I quoted.....I see you had no comment about THAT!.....worthless liberals.....

[moderate democrat]

apparently you paid no attention to what Obama said during the campaign......obviously, since you voted for him.......

he said that he wanted to establish a diplomatic dialog with Iran... something more sane people think is in our national interests to do. Again... If you think that Obama believed that merely expressing the first sign of a willingness to engage in constructive diplomacy with Iran would, in and of itself, change how Iran feels about the US... perhaps you have a link that would back up that assertion. Or you could admit that you are, in fact, just blowing smoke.

[moderate democrat]

???....so, is it your belief that the insurgents that continued hostilities for the following three years had nothing to do with Iraq's military?......

oh...they certainly did... but then, that does not change the fact that Colin Powell said that Iraq was incapable of projecting military power outside its borders, does it? Or are you suggesting that Iraq's military was prepared to take the fight to OUR streets via some sort of insurgency operation?

[PostmodernProphet]

he said that he wanted to establish a diplomatic dialog with Iran... something more sane people think is in our national interests to do. Again... If you think that Obama believed that merely expressing the first sign of a willingness to engage in constructive diplomacy with Iran would, in and of itself, change how Iran feels about the US... perhaps you have a link that would back up that assertion. Or you could admit that you are, in fact, just blowing smoke.

I think it's pretty obvious that Obama thought sitting down and talking with Iran was going to change their attitude toward the US....and that Iran has made it perfectly clear they have no intent to change their attitude.....

[PostmodernProphet]

oh...they certainly did... but then, that does not change the fact that Colin Powell said that Iraq was incapable of projecting military power outside its borders, does it? Or are you suggesting that Iraq's military was prepared to take the fight to OUR streets via some sort of insurgency operation?

so in your opinion, the only time that US has a right to engage is when there is a threat to the streets of New York?....or San Diego?.....in your mind is there anything that can happen outside our physical borders that represents a threat to us?.......

I suppose then you were opposed to the first Gulf War.....and to action in Bosnia?.....how about Rwanda?.....the Korean War....WW2?......none of those happened on our streets.....

[Silver]

A....when have I EVER said that Bush was the only one who said that Iraq had WMD's?

B.....NO OTHER former president sent 150K troops into Iraq.

and, regardless of your sniping little neg rep, the statement "THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SADDAM HAS STOCKPILES OF WMD'S" IS, in fact, a lie. Because there WAS doubt...within our own intelligence agencies... ANY doubt there makes the statement that there IS no doubt a knowingly false statement.

Why lad...why do you have such a freekin problem understanding that A, above,
has absolutely nothing to do with B above....unrelated issues...

You love to use the 2 concepts together ...I've seen it numerous times....
Its like saying "cats have nine lives" and "water is wet"....2 unrelated issues....


And ....maybe Bush was speaking for himself, not for the CIA or any other agency....thats seems to be another tough concept for you....

[Silver]

I think reconstituting requires some tangible evidence that some former capability had, in fact, been RECONSTITUTED. "Intentions" do not equate to "reconstitution". The actual "unreconstituted" "capabilities", or lack thereof, of Saddam's military were proven by how quickly our forces totally routed them in the early days of the Iraq war. There was no reconstituted military might...there was the same paper tiger that Colin Powell talked about in Cairo months before 9/11. There were no stockpiles of WMD's and Hans Blix told us it was wrong to assume that they existed... and there was NEVER any operational connection between Saddam and OBL.

And now you can't differentiate between what we thought in January and what we found out in May.......it must be hard to be you...lacking critical thinking and following a timeline for clarity....

[moderate democrat]

And now you can't differentiate between what we thought in January and what we found out in May.......it must be hard to be you...lacking critical thinking and following a timeline for clarity....

and you seem to forget what the Secretary of State knew even before 9/11.

not surprising.

[moderate democrat]

And ....maybe Bush was speaking for himself, not for the CIA or any other agency....thats seems to be another tough concept for you....

if Bush had been speaking for himself, he would have said "I have no doubt" as opposed to "There is no doubt". I realize such subtle distinctions are lost on you, but the two phrases DO have different meanings.

[moderate democrat]

so in your opinion, the only time that US has a right to engage is when there is a threat to the streets of New York?....or San Diego?.....in your mind is there anything that can happen outside our physical borders that represents a threat to us?.......

I suppose then you were opposed to the first Gulf War.....and to action in Bosnia?.....how about Rwanda?.....the Korean War....WW2?......none of those happened on our streets.....


WWII didn't happen on our streets?

Tell that to the residents of Oahu.

And I have never said that the ONLY time that we have a right to engage is when there is a threat to our own streets. I DID say that invading Iraq while leaving AQ free to prance around in Afghanistan was a terrible mistake...and a TERRIBLE diversion of precious resources. Why you guys can't just admit that it a mystery to me...but then I remember: you're all conservative/republican HACKS who love your party more than your country, and then it makes sense.

[PostmodernProphet]

WWII didn't happen on our streets?

Tell that to the residents of Oahu.


Hawaii wasn't a state in the 40s....but that doesn't matter, since you only made the comment to divert from the truth of the rest of it.....



And I have never said that the ONLY time that we have a right to engage is when there is a threat to our own streets. I DID say that invading Iraq while leaving AQ free to prance around in Afghanistan was a terrible mistake...

because you're a liberal hack who loves his party more than his country?....

[moderate democrat]

I think it's pretty obvious that Obama thought sitting down and talking with Iran was going to change their attitude toward the US....and that Iran has made it perfectly clear they have no intent to change their attitude.....


so...you don't have any link?

why am I not surprised?

And I would not disagree that Obama thinks that sitting down and talking with our adversaries is a much better first option than invading, conquering and occupying them... or nuking them into the stone age.

and I have never heard him say anything that would give anyone (except a hack like you) the idea that he thought that the mere act of sitting down and talking to anyone would instantaneously change their minds about anything. undoing the foreign policy screw ups from the Bush administration will be a lengthy process that will, no doubt, take the hard work of several administrations.

[PostmodernProphet]

so...you don't have any link?

why am I not surprised?

And I would not disagree that Obama thinks that sitting down and talking with our adversaries is a much better first option than invading, conquering and occupying them... or nuking them into the stone age.

and I have never heard him say anything that would give anyone (except a hack like you) the idea that he thought that the mere act of sitting down and talking to anyone would instantaneously change their minds about anything. undoing the foreign policy screw ups from the Bush administration will be a lengthy process that will, no doubt, take the hard work of several administrations.

link to what, him saying he was going to sit down and talk with them?....it's not like he said it only once....

here's one...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/02obama.html?_r=1

and as far as my believing he would instantaneously change the minds of the Iranians, you apparently have me confused with someone who voted for him.....I'm a conservative, remember?....I didn't believe ANYTHING he said.....

[actsnoblemartin]

yeah, that whole debate thing

where he said it too


link to what, him saying he was going to sit down and talk with them?....it's not like he said it only once....

here's one...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/02obama.html?_r=1

and as far as my believing he would instantaneously change the minds of the Iranians, you apparently have me confused with someone who voted for him.....I'm a conservative, remember?....I didn't believe ANYTHING he said.....

[moderate democrat]

link to what, him saying he was going to sit down and talk with them?....it's not like he said it only once....

here's one...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/02obama.html?_r=1

and as far as my believing he would instantaneously change the minds of the Iranians, you apparently have me confused with someone who voted for him.....I'm a conservative, remember?....I didn't believe ANYTHING he said.....

I am curious: are you a moron or just being intentionally obtuse?

Do you honestly think that saying that you intend to open a dialog with adversaries is synonymous with thinking that the mere act of beginning that dialog will achieve sweeping change on the part of one's adversaries?

[Yurt]

I am curious: are you a moron or just being intentionally obtuse?

Do you honestly think that saying that you intend to open a dialog with adversaries is synonymous with thinking that the mere act of beginning that dialog will achieve sweeping change on the part of one's adversaries?

how quaint, calling people moron....thought you did not approve of that :poke:

no, obama thought by openign dialogue he would make matters worse :poke:

[moderate democrat]

how quaint, calling people moron....thought you did not approve of that :poke:

no, obama thought by openign dialogue he would make matters worse :poke:

try answering the question.

and when have I ever made an issue about calling someone a moron?

[PostmodernProphet]

I am curious: are you a moron or just being intentionally obtuse?

neither, so far as I am aware....I simply don't believe the bullshit you're peddling....



Do you honestly think that saying that you intend to open a dialog with adversaries is synonymous with thinking that the mere act of beginning that dialog will achieve sweeping change on the part of one's adversaries?

what you're doing is called dissembling....you try your hardest to divide what is said into smaller and smaller segments until you can find something small enough to deny.....doesn't really change reality, but it makes it more palatable for you....you should get over it in a year or three.....

[emmett]

try answering the question.

and when have I ever made an issue about calling someone a moron?
WWII didn't happen on our streets?



Yes it did!

[moderate democrat]

neither, so far as I am aware....I simply don't believe the bullshit you're peddling....



what you're doing is called dissembling....you try your hardest to divide what is said into smaller and smaller segments until you can find something small enough to deny.....doesn't really change reality, but it makes it more palatable for you....you should get over it in a year or three.....

no. You made the following statement:

no, what was moronic was Obama believing he would be able to change how Iran feels about the US by willing to sit across a table and share tea with them.....

and you cannot back that up. Why not be grown up about it and just admit it?

[emmett]

So what MD, you said the exact thing about me this am. On Post #71 at 9:44 am this morning, YOU said to ME:

You are being moronic to expect Iran to immediately fall over themselves accepting Obama's first indication of a changed tone in Washington.

[emmett]

I certainly DoN'T expect that they will ever fall over themselves for Obama. They aren't Liberal Americans!

What I do expect is that Iran will develop a Nuclear weapon...ON HIS WATCH.....which is now as he stupidly looks on. I also suspect he will be confronted with making an important decision on what to do when it becomaes apparent that Israel is threatened by this fact. He will fail and get caught! Even YOU will admit that here on this board in 24 months or less. THAT is what this MORON believes!

[PostmodernProphet]

no. You made the following statement:

no, what was moronic was Obama believing he would be able to change how Iran feels about the US by willing to sit across a table and share tea with them.....

and you cannot back that up. Why not be grown up about it and just admit it?

can't back it up?.....I gave you a link.....you're the moron who added the part about the first time.......

[bullypulpit]

odd then that at one time Al Qaeda acted freely in the entire region, in truth acted even in New York....and now they act freely only in the tribal regions in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan....I consider that a reduction.....

And the attacks in Mumbai in November of 2008 were simply a figment of our imaginations?

[moderate democrat]

can't back it up?.....I gave you a link.....you're the moron who added the part about the first time.......

YOU are the one who had deemed his diplomatic initiative a failure AFTER THE FIRST TIME. moron.

[moderate democrat]

So what MD, you said the exact thing about me this am. On Post #71 at 9:44 am this morning, YOU said to ME:

You are being moronic to expect Iran to immediately fall over themselves accepting Obama's first indication of a changed tone in Washington.

and I stand by that statement. Diplomacy is a process. It doesn't achieve the desired outcome at the very first step of the process. It is pure partisan hackery that would claim Obama's diplomatic efforts regarding Iran are a failure because the first step of the process did not achieve the desired outcome.

[bullypulpit]

???...nothing at all....it had to do with stabilizing the Middle East......

Gosh, and here I thought it was to counter the threat of Saddam's non-existence WMD's. Or was it to free the Iraqi people? Or perhaps it was to establish a Jeffersonian democracy in a region that has never known such a system? Or, perhaps it was just to secure Iraqi oil fields for US oil companies.

[moderate democrat]

Gosh, and here I thought it was to counter the threat of Saddam's non-existence WMD's. Or was it to free the Iraqi people? Or perhaps it was to establish a Jeffersonian democracy in a region that has never known such a system? Or, perhaps it was just to secure Iraqi oil fields for US oil companies.

it certainly was sold to us with an ever changing panoply of justifications.

[bullypulpit]

consider yourself irrelevant....we are talking about 2003 when the war began, not 2001......

Sorry to disappoint you, but one follows the other as surely as day follows night. The same policies led to the failure to secure Afghanistan as led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bush administration policies in both Afghanistan and Iraq were, and are, demonstrable failures.

<center><a href=http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1188>The Failed Counterterrorism Policy of George W. Bush</a></center>

The only thing more irrelevant than the continued claims of success on the part of the Bush administration in Afghanistan and Iraq is the continued mindless support of those policies by the apologists and slavish backers of the "Bush doctrine".

[PostmodernProphet]

YOU are the one who had deemed his diplomatic initiative a failure AFTER THE FIRST TIME. moron.

hardly....I deemed his initiative a failure long before he was elected.....moron.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Gosh, and here I thought it was to counter the threat of Saddam's non-existence WMD's. Or was it to free the Iraqi people? Or perhaps it was to establish a Jeffersonian democracy in a region that has never known such a system? Or, perhaps it was just to secure Iraqi oil fields for US oil companies.

no you didn't.....you just used those as liberal talking points whenever you thought it might be convenient to stall the war in Iraq....after all, YOUR parties goal was to capitalize on everything negative so you could win elections......

[PostmodernProphet]

Sorry to disappoint you, but one follows the other as surely as day follows night. The same policies led to the failure to secure Afghanistan as led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bush administration policies in both Afghanistan and Iraq were, and are, demonstrable failures.
".

???....that, of course, has nothing to do with what we were talking about when I made the comment you quoted.......but don't let that stop you.....

[Yurt]

no you didn't.....you just used those as liberal talking points whenever you thought it might be convenient to stall the war in Iraq....after all, YOUR parties goal was to capitalize on everything negative so you could win elections......

exactly, people like moderate democrat and bully slammed the iraq "occupation" and gave strength to the enemy. not even a year had passed and they called iraq a failure, just look at the 04 elections. imagine how much glee this gave the terrorists....just keep terrorizing iraq and the will of the american people shatters. and the dems succeeded quite well in causing many failures and deaths in iraq.

[Yurt]

and I stand by that statement. Diplomacy is a process. It doesn't achieve the desired outcome at the very first step of the process. It is pure partisan hackery that would claim Obama's diplomatic efforts regarding Iran are a failure because the first step of the process did not achieve the desired outcome.

glad you admit that you and most dems who quickly announced iraq a failure less than a year after we ousted saddam are nothing but political hacks....

[moderate democrat]

glad you admit that you and most dems who quickly announced iraq a failure less than a year after we ousted saddam are nothing but political hacks....


I love how you always put words in my mouth and then announce that I have admitted to anything. The war in Iraq may or may not be a failure...and I don't think I ever called it a failure... I think I have always said that I thought it was a MISTAKE. And one can make that sort of determination fairly early on.

[emmett]

I love how you always put words in my mouth and then announce that I have admitted to anything. The war in Iraq may or may not be a failure...and I don't think I ever called it a failure... I think I have always said that I thought it was a MISTAKE. And one can make that sort of determination fairly early on.

Actually...you did call it a failure 116 times actually. Which one would you like to see?

You called Bush a liar many times as well. He went on the same information as the Democrats who voted to invade Iraq. Including your Presidential candidate, John Kerry, who voted for it before he voted against it. Actually he only voted for it!

Bully said Bush's failed strategy involved Afghanistan and Iraq. That means he must think it was a "demonstrable" failure for Barry to have just reinforced Afghanistan with thousands of troops with plans to send thousands more. Oh let me guess....it's different now!

PS........ I am not a supporter of the War. You will have to use different rhetoric when debating this subject with me. You may still insist that I am a moron and call me other names as well which is the MO for you when dealing with someone who does not agree with you <or> you could try to convince me while being civil, which appears to be something less and less plentiful around here nowadays. Then again, you could do what you usually do when dealing with me and just ignore me because I have instilled a fear of debating in Liberals unintentionally because you realize I deal in facts only and not hate filled bius.

[moderate democrat]

I don't think I have ever called YOU a moron, emmett...if I did, I certainly didn't mean it seriously.

I never had any problem with Bush's Afghan strategy... only in his half-assed execution.

[Kathianne]

Actually...you did call it a failure 116 times actually. Which one would you like to see?

You called Bush a liar many times as well. He went on the same information as the Democrats who voted to invade Iraq. Including your Presidential candidate, John Kerry, who voted for it before he voted against it. Actually he only voted for it!

Bully said Bush's failed strategy involved Afghanistan and Iraq. That means he must think it was a "demonstrable" failure for Barry to have just reinforced Afghanistan with thousands of troops with plans to send thousands more. Oh let me guess....it's different now!

PS........ I am not a supporter of the War. You will have to use different rhetoric when debating this subject with me. You may still insist that I am a moron and call me other names as well which is the MO for you when dealing with someone who does not agree with you <or> you could try to convince me while being civil, which appears to be something less and less plentiful around here nowadays. Then again, you could do what you usually do when dealing with me and just ignore me because I have instilled a fear of debating in Liberals unintentionally because you realize I deal in facts only and not hate filled bius.

I.O.U. rep.

[emmett]

I don't think I have ever called YOU a moron, emmett...if I did, I certainly didn't mean it seriously.

I never had any problem with Bush's Afghan strategy... only in his half-assed execution.


Moron thing = Unimportant. Just joshin!

The half assed thing! Very important. Let me refresh your memory! A clean sweep of Afghanistan was implemented just prior to Iraq. It forced Al Queda to run and take up positions in Iraq. By implementing the strategy in the way it was done, our brilliant military strategists (not George Bush) were able to flush out the terrorists using sophisticated bunker buster bombs, forcing them to take cover in friendly Iraq. Saddam's eye was taken off the ball by this and he allowed himself to be caught "pants down" and after he violated the 90's treaty where he swore to allow weapons inspectors to conduct regular missions to assure his adhereing to HIS OWN AGREEMENT. Our forces were then in excellent tactical position to just move over and invade! A brilliant strategy actually.....EVEN THOUGH I WAS AGAINST IT! (Just for example, THAT is non biusness MD) Upon having ridded the Taliban of a serious threat we were clear to stop the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, who knowingly had gased 300,000 of his own people over the last 19 years. I know you know that, I'm being silly to think that you don't. I know also that you no doubt feel terrible knowing anyone would have wanted a man in dictatorship style power that was sure to exterminate his foes or anyone who did not vote clearly for whatever he wanted in his supposed House of Parliment. Hence for the reason for 74 straight 100% votes on items in that body. What a Democracy huh?

Anyway, despite the claims of the Information Minister, american forces, who were busy being ran out of the country with their tails on devilfire as claimed, were able to quickly and with an amazingly low civilian casuality rate.....topple the statue of Saddam Hussein. During the invasion, our Sony Play Station crazed, wild eyed rap loving youngsters were able to save many terrified Iraqi soldiers lives as opposed to slaughtering them as would have been suggested by YOUR party as they had voted to AUTHORIZE in great numbers....this invasion based on the same information that misled the President, which he admitted to on National television. An act I personally thought was one of his not so many highlights of serving as my President.

Soon afterward we of course killed the two fukboys and captured their father, who was living in a hole in the ground. Thus the mission was a success in that regard. Next mission was to capture the Al Queda forces that had taken up arms there as a result of being ran out of Afghanistan. This was a difficult task. A War such as this had never been waged in history. A ghost enemy who could strike from out of no where. An unidentifyable army of suicide killers and religious freaks whom I am certain you, as a man of the cloth, have NO idealogue of comparison with.

Everything was goping fine until YOUR party got going once again with their "Jaggerjargin" (My new favorite phrase). Right in front of our nation they began to call our president a liar and openly insult him for falling prey to the EXACT same thing that had influenced them. Of course it was really because they had their eye on the election of 2004 and beyond that was their true motivator. Fate would have it that they would lose however and after failed attempts to make Americans think another election had been stolen, a common practice for losers, they began a ridiculous campagne to make Americans their soldiers were murderers and killers. The same soldiers who tour after tour had risked life and limb to save Iraqi citizens and soldiers, were being hailed by their own people as murderous killers to advance a political agenda. How cowardly!

Now I must admit I really did not want to see war in Iraq. A little less but not as much I did not want to see Afghanistan either but understood. I understand the strategy though because I am not blind. It was necessary at the time and under the circumstances. I truly hate that! It was when my own fellow Americans witnessed a political party use their power to cut off funding for those troops that took me over the edge. I found myself fighting one of the hardest battles in my own mind I ever had. I remembered my own days in the military and thought of what it would have been like to have to have served in that capacity instead of a nice cushy peacetime stint such as I did. I began to feel very bitter myself watching the rhetoric being spewed out by my own elected officials against our country and it's plan to rid ourselves of the terrorists that as obviously as a hand in front of our face, taken up battle lines in Iraq. This War I realized had to be fought. I still wish we wouldn't have gotten into it but I was understanding........like my Liberal countrymen should have been.

Somehow my President against a majority was miraculously able to keep steering our forces by use of brilliant military strategists such as Gen Petraeus, soon there was a shot at victory despite those such as Harry reid who made sure to echo day after day the harmful "Jaggerjargin" that we had LOST the War on Terror. He then went on to spearhead an attempt to shanghi our military, pump bogus info through our press and team up with nancy Pelosi, the newly elected Speaker of the House of Represenatives to further attempt to brainwash our young people throughout America that George Bush was a liar, killer and tyrant. Most of their plan worked in that regard and caused some weaker, non founded Republicans to jumop on board and cause a lame duck Presidency at home which enabled Democrats to sabotage much of our own economy. The two year plan to do this worked perfectly unfortunately and as a result caused even the President to admit a "bailout" was necessary to save some American companies. I completely disagreed with this line of thinking being a Free Market Capatilist, I shivered when I heard my President make this statement.

So. Mr. Moderate Democrat, whom I have never seen anything but radical leftist behavior and practices out of, i respectfully disagree with your assertion that Bush made a half assed job of Afghanistan. Frankly, I think his strategy (or his military planners) was perfect. It has led to the situation we have now. YOUR President and MINE can now place more troops in Afghanistan where the scoundrels are now hemmed in. They do not have the option of running to Iraq as before. They are cornered and will be defeated. It will be because the last President envisioned a strategy condicive with requiring the next president to adhere to strategy. He ahs seemingly done this demonstrating that at least there appears to be one thing "they" have done very well together. I wonder if this could have been one of those conversations that took place in that room where only the two of them were audience of one another. I seem to notice as I am sure you, being as seemingly perky as you are to recent news, that Obama tuned down his rhetoric of the president 100% after that meeting. I am certain that as we speak, he is following the explicit instructions laid out for him by Mr. bush whether you or I like it or not. Now the monkey is on Obama's back. He cannot win the War, the strategy for that has already been laid out, he can only lose it. Good thing Harry Reid and every other democrat in the country, including you and your Liberal pals, have shut up about what a catastrophe the war is and instantly changed their opinion of our intentions due to some belief that because barry is doing it...it's OK. Well.....it is OK. I still like War jst as little as I did when Mr, Bush unleashed his "half assed" plan in Afghanistan, but I support this president's mission to see the jon through. For your sake and mine. He obviously will have a way less degree of difficulty in doing so since he has a House and Senate of Mummies who will do whatever he says when he says it. For that reason i am ironically gald that is the case.

Non biused committment to your country my friend is exactly what you have read described here. Not your insulting, namecalling, "moronic" (got you back) method of in your face to agree or else philosophy. To have the elasticity to understand, to feel the true deepened sense of ultimate commitment to my country i must support my President even when I think he is a powermongering control whore who is out to destroy the very way of life I love back here at home socialogically and economically. After he produces Osama Bin Laden, which he will by the Grace of God Almighty, declares victory over Terrorist who would harm Americans (who is I always care about first, I'll trade you 1000 lives of any other countryman for one single American life my friend), then I will compliment him and go on to attacking his domestic policy.

People who know me know that i mean exactly what i have said. It was very hard for me to support the invasion of another country. It's harder however to support a political party who right here at home sought to derail our American military efforts to win in Iraq, which is exactly what we did which makes Harry, Nancy and Barney all absolute treasonists who I would pull the switch on myself and sleep all night.

Narrowness is something that comes from being shallow. Understanding is a gift. Open up a little, open your mind. Read what is there and develop your own opinion, not just the repeating of some talking point you heard on the Randi Rhodes show.

George Bush is a good man. He tried hard. He did poorly. He stuck to his guns. Admireable. I wish he wouldn't have allowed us to enter that war.

Barack Obama is a power hungry fool. He tries hard. He has also done poorly so far. I hope he sticks to his guns so in the end he will show his true intentions. That does not mean I hope he fails.