Cheney
rather than actually formulate a coherent policy in Iraq, the administration has chosen instead to stage a chickenhawk eruption, using first the Prez and then Cheney to slam war critics:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
btw, Cheney lecturing anyone on honesty is a bit of a stretch - Congressman Henry Waxman has put together a nice little cheat sheet, documenting 51 distinctly misleading statements from Cheney, and hundreds from other cabal members - check it here. |
What's all this about chickenshit eruptions? Jeez, not another thread about albed.
OK, I'll stop, I swear. |
I don't believe you.
You apparently never stop having fecal fantasies. Maybe there's a support group somewhere. |
Saw that senile old fuck Murtha blubbering and bawling on CSPAN last night about his visits to wounded U.S. soldiers, too brain dead to understand that there dozens of wounded Iraqis for each soldier and there'd be many more if the U.S. follows his clouded judgement and withdraws. Even John Kerry disagrees with him, at least until he agrees.
Of course the liberal media clipped out some of the rational parts of his speech to make him sound more reasonable for this mornings sound bites. It'd be laughable if some intelligent reporter asked him to explain the strategic results of his desired action. The question still goes unanswered by the 'lost memories and spines crowd'; how will retreating from Iraq make the U.S. safer? |
Scott McClellan: "Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America, so it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled--nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer."
I guess the liberal media left in the irrational parts of McClellan's statement. Michael Moore for chrissake? Surrender to the terrorists? It's not surprising their approval ratings are plummeting when they use logic that wouldn't work on a ten year old. This administration pretends that the only considerations about policy in Iraq that matter are the right vs. left political climate at home and continue to inflame the debate with the allusion that we're fighting some mythical amalgamation of the insurgency which targets us there and a small unrelated group that attacked us four years ago--"The Terrorists." Meanwhile Saddam is gone, and elections are being held, which was their stated goal, woohoo, and they've still never adequately explained how this is supposed to make the US a safer place even though it's strengthening and focusing an apparently endlessly renewable indigenous source of hatred for Americans on foreign soil. Meanwhile these tactics seem to ensure that the question remains unanswered and completely avoided by the 'false guts and balls crowd': how does staying in Iraq make the US safer? It's easy to see how it made a few of us richer, and about 2000 of us deader, but anyone who feels safer is either deluded or simply lying. Hardly surprising that no one seems to have any real concrete viable answer, since they never adequately answered the question of how going to Iraq in the first place made us safer, we were simply branded as cowards for asking--and now we're called spineless for wishing to complete the mission, come home and get on with actually protecting ourselves. |
Quote:
they'll have us* stay there until we lose another few thousand young kids. then when the conservatives get bored w/the process and decide it's more important to fight evolution or contraception or gay marriage or thinking in general it'll be ok to leave. not that anything will change in iraq mind you. it'll be as dangerous as bush could make it, they'll just have dreamed up a spiffy explanation by one of their potomac "think" tanks (lol) and vetted on right wing talk radio to con the choir, who will swallow it whole of course and bore us endlessly with why it's now the right time to leave, while iraq explodes into civil war and decades of chaos. - js. *"us" defined as anyone but the hawks supporting the war. they apparently need to remain here in nice comfy chairs so that they can post quick retorts to liberals. that's what they must think real battlefield activity is i guess. |
LMAO. Now here's a really progressive liberal; already bitching in advance in case the conservatives do what he wants and pull out of Iraq.
Clearly there's no pleasing you warped, chronic complainers. |
Quote:
|
Withdrawal is not surrender. The word 'surrender' in this context is nothing short of propagandist bullshit.
If withdrawal is surrender, I guess we might as well settle in to stay there forever because the suicide bombings etc. won't be stopping any time this century. Unfortunately for you, we won't be staying there forever though, as the idiots in charge have all but wasted any shred of credibility they had and the pendulum is bound to swing the other way. But I guess it's nice and everything that you guys don't give a shit about how many lives (not your own) will be wasted on this political sham to make 'your side' feel brave and heroic at home. Enjoy that sense of superiority while it lasts. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don’t believe that but do you really believe what you wrote? Also you might see the death of an American Soldier in combat, (No Matter what the cause), as a wasted life, I don’t, there are casualties in all wars, I know it, you know it, the soldiers fighting know it, as do their families. I don’t see the political sham either btw. |
The term "lives" to Ramona only means handsome young U.S. military men that he fantasizes about. Skinny dark haired Iraqis who get killed 20 times as often as Ramona's dreamboats don't matter a bit to him.
Just as blacks have been shown to be more racist than whites, I suspect gays may be more prejudiced than heteros. Certainly our very own "Citizen Of The World" falls far short of his self-proclaimed title. |
Quote:
Murtha's credentials in this area are impeccable - it's a reality check you can take to the bank. edit: btw, the GOP resolution to withdraw, being debated at this moment, is a bluff - a sham to see if the Dems have the spine to stand up and be counted (it's unlikely they do). note the difference between Murtha's resolution and the Republican version: Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't care about his credentials or his character. I care about his plan or lack of one. Murtha said something about moving American troops "outside the borders" of Iraq and using them as a "quick strike force". What type of plan is that? Who's borders is he talking about? Please tell me, Iran's? Kuwait? Syria? Turkey didn't let the US launch the an attack from there in 2003, so I guess he means put aircraft carriers and lots of fast helicopters in the Persian Gulf or the Mediterranean. Great idea....or does he mean invade an border country and put troops there? -If they were outside Iraq, how fast could they strike from there, if called back in to respond to a car bomb or sniper attack or uprising from a few dozen Al Qaida thugs? About all they could do is come in a few hours later and write up a casualty/damage report, while the bad guys have either been shot by Iraqis or disappeared into the woodwork. Murtha's "strategy" makes no military sense whatsoever.- Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The war against Iraq was won in short order. Now it's no longer a war it's an insurgency and that too can be won. Get away from your liberal propaganda sites and try learning something from the internet. I believe Malaysia is the standard case study for counterinsurgency but there are a lot of examples. The Marine Corp Small Wars Manual has the basic strategy and it's been expunded numerous times in speeches by the administration. But as usual, since you don't know about something, to you it doesn't exist, like the body armor apparently.
|
the Congressman lays it down cold right here. the most candid take on the Iraq to date and well worth the download - decide for yourself, Murtha obviously did.
|
You wouldn't know a candid take if it fell on your head. Where's the info on the geographical areas the insurgency is active in? The activity level of the insurgents? The estimated strength of the insurgents? The Iraqi governments military strength and capabilities? Fuck he doesn't even give info on the U.S. forces involved.
But I guess information isn't necessary for liberals to make a decision. They hear someone say something so they clear their throats and squawk it themselves. |
Quote:
|
yet another cut-and-run, cowardly traitor:
Quote:
|
He must have thought the dems might actually vote for what they said they wanted.
He should realize that their entire agenda is impeding the administration with hot air and bullshit and they have no intention of actually doing what they say should be done. They've been called on to walk their talk and now it's perfectly clear that they don't walk at all. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)