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:
today, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats, responded by calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
way to go...uh, John who?
oh, ok....and the Congressman had special hugs and kisses for Cheney:
ouch. he further added:
damn straight - bring 'em home now. :AP:

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.

it's always the "eve of something historic" with these prevaricators preventing us from doing anything - unless it happens to be what they want done, been that way for years. they've got more eves than a feminine hygine drug counter.

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.

By the way, Murtha's timing is extremely suspect--he waited until the President is in South Korea to publicly embarrass him before one of our allies, which is facing a dangerous enemy to their north. Has Murtha thought about what both Koreas (North and South) think of this, and how this impacts the national security of not only the United States, but South Korea? Is Murtha too cowardly to face Bush when he is down the street at the White House?

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.

Is that opinion or fact????

Can I use the term “Cut and Run” – is that better? My guess is you are right on one thing, there will always be a US military presence in Iraq, why not have a military base there? Makes sense to me. The US Military is doing a lot more then just hunting down terrorist in Iraq, They are also training Iraqi Police and Military personal and they are getting on the job training. In the not to long future it will be mostly if not all Iraqi soldiers patrolling their country. I guess yourself and some of the left would rather cut and run to allow Iraq fall into a long civil war, like Lebanon did.

I guess you don’t care about the 500,000 children in whom Saddam allowed to starve to death or the thousands he murdered, etc…

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.

Bush has already embarrassed the greatest military force on the planet by putting them into a war they cannot win. Murtha cannot give China or Iran or North Korea anymore comfort than Bush already has, from seeing US forces, bogged down and quite vulnerable, in Iraq.

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:

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.-

well then, let's stick with the current plan: send our troops into an unwinnable war based on a lie with no strategy, no exit plan, and no body armor, then just watch them get killed while claiming everything is going well.

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.

One reads like a political parody of the Declaration of Independence, while the other one is a rather straightforeward resolution that basically says the same thing.

yet another cut-and-run, cowardly traitor: whoops, that's the General George Casey, top US commander in Iraq. hasn't he been listening to the psuedocons? didn't he get the memo that the only way to honor the sacrifice of our brave troops is to continue getting them killed?

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.

I'd trust a military plan for withdral over any politician's plan. It's likely that an exit strategy like this one was requested by the administration in case the Republican resolution passed. It's best to leave these things up to the people who understand the situation, so Congress best stay out of it.

The final vote is 403-3 (6 present, 22 not voting) on immediate withdrawal from Iraq. So, when Democrats hold press conferences stating we should 'immediately redeploy' ('Retreat hell! We're just redeploying gradually in a different direction when 'practicable!'), they are speaking figuratively.

i haven't heard more bulsh*t since vietnam. typical republican grandstanding while more continue to die.

- js.

Really? read Murtha's resolution again then.....The US Congress has learned the Vietnam lesson: We will not abandon our friends and allies to the good wishes of murdering thugs.

Jack Murtha is an American hero, who has learned the other Vietnam lesson: RUN!!

i'm not sure where you get your information concerning vietnam but i suggest you get a refund. vietnam had a civil war. the parties in question were the fascist establishment vs the communist upstarts. what we had was an academic philosophy of "containment" that had nothing to do with the people of vietnam, or as it turns out, reality.

the lesson we learned cost 50,000 american lives and an untold number of asians, but it was simple: we can't stop someone else’s civil war by occupation unless we care to send our young there to die indefinitely - and - we fix the problem politically. even then we have no guarantees. the same lesson applies to iraq. perhaps even more so since the internal hatred reaches back to a time america wasn't even a concept. the shiites and the sunnis will have their civil war, whenever we leave, regardless of how efficient we make their militia killing machines. the sunnis will be crushed, the shiites victorious and all this talk about balance forgotten as some kind of absurdist conservative think tank fairy tale the muddled masses swallowed whole. in the meantime more americans will die in the slow waltz to the inevitable.

- js.

Please stop comparing Iraq to Vietnam, there's no way 58,000 American soldiers are going to die there. There's no draft. There's no Ho Chi Minh trail. The comparison is not only futile, it's tiresome.

Shiites and Sunnis aren't as despairate to kill each other as you think. A civil war might be inevitable if we left them alone now, but the longer we engage them politically the more they learn and more preventable civil war becomes. Besides, if the Shiites decide to slaughter Sunnis then Saudi Arabia will close its borders to all Shiites, not just Iraqis. Without access to Mecca an international war might begin, and nobody in the middle east wants that to happen. So if a couple thousand soldiers dying will save the lives of millions of Muslims then it's something we must do.

i'm not sure if we stayed long enough we wouldn't see those same casualties, but there isn't any way you can dismiss it out of hand, any more than than those who disregarded history and insisted we'd be out in weeks had any standing in truth. i would hope we don’t rack up 58,000, but hell, it could be more. the possibility exists. we won’t see those numbers if we leave beforehand tho. that’s about the only certainty. at this point in the conflicts more americans have died in iraq than in vietnam, so going by reality, instead of say, talk radio mythology, it's worse.

as for your feelings, well now if it's so tiresome for you sitting at home, imagine what it's like for those young americans who have to somehow deal with this neverending mistake on the ground. that they traveled there on intelligence manipulations is bad enough, that they stay to die is untenable. with or without us the ancient middle eastern tribes will do what they've always done, but it's past time our people returned.

- js.

If your feeling sorry for those poor, poor, pooooor soldiers just remember they kill at least 10 times as often as they get killed Jack. And the fighting's been going on long enough that many if not most have had time to leave the military or not join if they didn't want to serve in Iraq. So I don't think they need you whining for them. I doubt they've had time to listen to all the liberal comparisions to Vietnam but if they did they'd no doubt find it as tiresome as everyone else.

CNN management has launched an internal investigation into how a giant black 'X' mark appeared over Vice President Dick Cheney's face -- as he delivered a speech from Washington on Monday!

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4cnc.htm

scary shit

i wonder what they are trying to say.

im sure they will find some low level scapegoat.

Jack, AMERICA MUST PREVAIL, You can not Run this time;

Murtha whined on the floor of the house about the dead and injured soldiers as a lot of the liberal left do, your enemies would rightly conclude that Americans are weak and will run when they shed blood, Rome Fell, The USA was not put in this position, 911 happened, and yes I bring 9/11 into this. Was Saddam connected to the terrorist attacks? No he most likely was not, but Did Saddam hate America? With Afghanistan no longer a safe haven for terrorist, would Saddam open his country to them? BTW, don’t even try to say Iraq is now a safe haven for terrorist, there are more terrorist in Iraq now, but they are far far from safe, remove American troops from Iraq right now – well then they are safe. Saddam needed to be removed and removed when he was, why wait until he builds his army up, get WMD, or helps the terrorist attack America again, the world is safer with out Saddam controlling Iraq.



What are your opinions on this article?

"prevailing" is not an option - it's unwinnable, by any conventional definition. here's how it ends - the Kurds do reasonably well as an autonomous, independent entity, the Shia end up in bed with Iran, and the Sunnis continue the violence with or without us.

forget democracy, no dancing in the streets, farewell to all that - Iraq was a neocon fantasy that was dead on arrival. the only remaining question is how many more get killed before we write it off and call it a day. as well we should. we got Saddam, no wmd's, mission accomplished - bring 'em home, end of story.

btw, the government of iraq wants us out, too:
if there is any legitimacy to the claim of freeing iraq, then there is no longer any legal grounds to remain there indefinitely. anyone who argues to stay the course is now arguing to ignore the wishes of the iraqi government, which therefore makes the whole fiasco a sham. so what's it gonna be? are they free or aren't they?

The Iraqi legislature needs to pass a law then. Do you understand legality? Fuck you don't even understand grammar and punctuation. Get a clue you straw grasping liberal.

An education and a sense of ethics wouldn't hurt you either. Both sorely lacking.

Knife, the only person to suggest that anyone wants our troops to say there indefinitely is you, but it simply isn't true. While the Cheney spokesperson who you continually quote was obviously way off the mark when he suggested the invasion would take weeks, not months (and what authority does such a person have to make such a prediction anyway?), I think that phrase demonstrates this administration's strong desire to bring this war to a quick end. Iraq's government understands this, which is why they're working on this timetable. The word timetable implies that they want our troops to leave gradually over a period of time, otherwise they would simply have made an ultimatum. The simple fact is that there is a lot of work yet to be done, millions of man hours need to be invested, and the old saying 'many hands make light work' still applies. Decreasing our presence there too sharply will ensure that the work will never be done so I'm afraid we can't just cut and run.

I am of course writing from the presumption that peace is attainable in the middle east. Anybody who thinks civil war is a foregone conslusion is arguing from ignorance. Tribalism in the middle east gave way to federalism many generations ago, and since then Arabs and Iranians have learned to settle disputes diplomatically. Maybe they need more practice, but like I've said, nobody in the middle east wants open war among Muslims, with a few exceptions. Hell, maybe we should send Bono in to help the Shiites and Sunnis learn to get along.

At any rate, the defeatist attitude I've seen here and among Democrats in congress is ludacris. For the politicians, the call to remove our troops from Iraq is a calculated move, but for the rest of us regular folk it's just a symptom of the media's selective reporting. In truth progress towards peace continues and will continue, and frankly, the fact that any American thinks that this war or any war is unwinnable deeply saddens me. If that attitude had previaled during the early stages of the American revolution then there would be no United States to speak of because for more than a year we were on the loosing side of that war. Beating the odds has always been the American way and I hope it always will be.

"ludacris" is a rapper, no? the word is ludicrous - let's use it in a sentence: it is ludicrous for American soldiers to be dying for an Iraqi government that supports the right of it's citizens to kill the American soldiers who are protecting it:
the Iraqi leadership recognizes the insurgency's right to resist, which is exercised by killing Americans. is that ludicrous enough for you?

Thanks for checking my spelling, albed, er I mean theknife.

But back to your point, an insurgent who attacks military targets and avoids civilians is clearly not a terrorist, and I can say that without endorsing their actions. So can Iraq. They don't support the insurgency, officially anyway, but like you they worry too much about symantics. While they don't actually recognize the insurgent's right to resist, they do recognize the insurgent's right not to be mislabeled. Americans have the right to kill insurgents, and so far Iraq has acknowledged that right and supported us in that effort with their police and military forces. They're clearly on our side.

by the same token a military who attacks insurgent targets and avoids civilians are not terrorists
um..



in Vietmam or the American revolution the difference in military technology wasnt as uneven..but the insurgencies were much better organised and had much greater numbers than the one in iraq...the insurgencies beat the odds..sure
and there was fairly positive outcomes after
although one did slip into a long and bloody civil war
but most countries the british have invaded and then left have

they dont look like pulling out of iraq anytime soon...either
http://news.scotsman.com/internation...?id=2285782005

btw, anyone hear the rumor bush is drinking again? it's going around the press corps along w/the ones he's not speaking to his dad & he's furious at cheney/rumsfeld for talking him into this fiasco...one rumor goes he was so stupid he really believed their fairly tale versions of "weeks not months" and "greeted as liberators w/flowers" etc, and now after bringing in al-qaeda from the harsh desert and giving them thier own comfy state and he's stuck with the problem he's "really mad about it! big fat liars" etc.

could be true, could be baloney or maybe he's getting crafty - he believed none of the fairy tales but he's resetting history so he doesn't come off as the worst us prez ever, just your atypical woolly-headed ex-doper, misled by evul trolls he was sure were pals.

- js.

Something to chew on..............

ouch - that hurt.

Someone with a propensity for the word "thier" shouldn't even mention someone else's mispelling of a much larger word.


I'm really a vocabulary nazi though and don't bother much with spelling.

well, while we're all debating the wisdom of withdrawal from iraq, looks like it's a foregone conclusion:
note to the hawks: it ain't about victory in iraq, it's about victory in the 2006 Congressional elections. the situation is untenable, everyone knows, it's just a question of how to spin the bail-out.

Believe what you want. Victory in Iraq has already been achieved, now it's simply a matter of keeping the peace. Really, calling all this the 'War on Terror' was an unfortunate mistake on the administration's part. Wars must come to an end, but defeating terrorism is a continuing process. The war with Iraq wasn't the war on terror, it was only one step in the process.

'victory" is a bit of a stretch, no? certainly you can say "mission accomplished" (that is, using the original mission objectives - get Saddam and the WMD's that weren't there). but victory for whom? not for US interests - we created a new generation of terrorists, weakened our military, made ourselves despised throughout the world, and put Iraq in bed with Iran. victory for the iraqis? they don't seem to share that sentiment - check this interview with iraq's first prime minister Iyad Allawi:
hmm - human rights abuses as bad or worse now than under Saddam. that's some victory.

but it will be necessary for the administration to declare victory to begin withdrawing troops and it will be necessary for the hard-core Bush apologists to repeat it in order to save face.

The difference is that now that Saddam is gone Iraq can do something about the human rights issues. As Sinner said in the text he quoted, Iraqis are beginning to despise the remanents of the old regime and you're going to see more and more of their attention focused on getting rid of them.

To prove that the US has lost this war, you'll have to prove that a) there are in fact more terrorists then there were before and they're more capable of attacking us, b) our military has been weakened, to do that you'll have to do more than cite recruitment statistics, c) show exactly how our image is hurting us in the eyes of other nations, ignoring general sentiment and citing actual economic and political evidence, and d) convince everyone that peace between Iraq and Iran is bad.

It's okay if you can't, as long as you just keep pounding the message we'll beleive you. :RE:

Look, everybody is getting what they wanted. US forces are going to leave Iraq on a rather short timetable, Iraq gets the chance to prove they're grown up enough to manage their own nation democratically, and the fact that no WMD's were found there is actually a good thing. The middle east is a safer place now because, no matter what you say, a madman with killer weapons and an entire nation at his command would be an order of magnitude more dangerous than even a thousand madmen with carbombs and machine guns.

actually, i think it's more of a stalemate, but to address your points:

1)the number of terrorists attacks world-wide, and obviously in iraq, are higher and dealier than ever (google the reports, but they've been linked here before), therefore it would be reasonable to assume there are more of them and they are better at it.

2)anecdotal, but telling: i was at Fort Bragg, NC last month, home of the 82nd Airborne - there are aging pot-bellied civilian rent-a-cops at the gates. they simply don't have enough active duty personnel to guard the base. there are lots of reports and stats, but you can google them as well as i can.
it is also questionable whether we currently have the resources to sustain a second war, long held to be the benchmark of our military capabiliies.

3)ask any American who's travelled overseas in the last year (i spent T-Day with a bunch of them) - the dislike for Amerca is palpable, the hostility often overt. extrapolate that into dollars lost for Americans who don't want to go back there, and foreigners who don't want to visit here. anecdotal as well, but a sea change nonetheless - we are simply no longer the beacon that we used to be.

4)"peace between iraq and iran"? i suppose that's one way to look at it - another way might be that one leg of Bush's "axis of evil" has now expanded it's sphere of influence to include a large part of iraq. this is a good thing?

Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania was right when he said that the U. S. military "have become the target" and he was right to suggest the U.S. should pull the troops out of Iraq. Immediately after Murtha's statement the Bush Administration linked the pro-military Democrat to Michael Moore and the so-called radical left of the Democratic Party. When the Bush War Room realized that most Americans agree with the hawkish Murtha, they toned down their description of Murtha recognizing his military service before criticizing his call to leave Iraq. The Bush Administration has two War Rooms, one to fight the political battles at home and one to fight the political battles in Iraq. Sometimes they forget which room they are in and tend to paint Democrats with the same brush they paint insurgent Sunnis. Vice President Dick Cheney called critics of the war "dishonest and reprehensible." Do you think he would have described himself that way when he asked for and was granted 5 deferments from the Vietnam War? Maybe deep down in his subconscious he knows that he is dishonest and reprehensible and now feels the need to call others that for criticizing his Iraqi war. It is the epitome of hypocrisy for Cheney to call critics of the Iraq War "dishonest and reprehensible" when he himself did everything possible to avoid the Vietnam War. Rep. Murtha was right to call Cheney on his 5 deferments. That is what stopped the Bush Administration from their catcalling and linking of Murtha to Michael Moore, the fact that Bush and Cheney did everything to avoid going into the Vietnam War and will do everything to keep sending others to war, a war in which they embellished the intelligence so they would have a reason to go to Iraq, throw out Saddam and take the Iraqi oil. Unfortunately the prosecuting of the Iraq War was not as simple as the simpletons in charge thought it would be and we find ourselves in the no win situation of staying for decades with the U.S. military getting picked off daily or leaving and letting the country fall into an all out civil war...

Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) in the House said to Murtha that a former marine told her to tell him, "That cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body that we will see this through." I have a question that everyone that voted for Schmidt should ask her and every other Pro-Iraq War congressperson. How many American casualties does it take for her to "see it through?" There are over 2,100 American dead from the Iraq War. At what number of American dead do you say enough already? In six months, a year, two years a decade, two decades, if the insurgency is the same and 4,000 or 10,000 US. soldiers are dead will you still say, "That cowards cut and run, Marines never do" and will you still want to give "the assurance from this body that we will see this through?" Voters should hold their representatives and senators to their word. What is exactly the end game? Is an Iraqi democracy, as Bush and Cheney want worth thousands of American lives and billions of dollars while little or nothing gets done to help the New Orleaneans that became refugees in their own country? An exit strategy should be laid out on the table for all to see with a specific timetable; anything less is nothing short of dishonesty. But then again dishonesty is something Bush, Cheney and the Republican led Congress have made into an art form...

Rep. John Murtha has the foresight and understands that staying the course means more American dead with little or nothing to show for it. It is easy to wrap yourself in a flag, say 'support the troops' and stay the course but the best way to support the troops is take them out of a war with no end in sight. Murtha has a strategy to get the U.S. military out of Iraq. President Bush and the Republican Party have a strategy to stay the course with some small temporary withdrawals to appease voters....

The bottom line is that no one likes another country to come into their country and occupy it, even if you remove a dictator in the process, occupation is occupation. As long as American soldiers patrol Iraq there will be an insurgency and as long as there is an insurgency there will be American casualties. Is that really the course you want to stay? I don't think so...

You think at the level of a goldfish going belly up after the aerator quit, so what you think is of little concern to normal people.

The real bottom line is plenty of Iraqis are very happy having U.S. troops providing a degree of security and freedom to them and even the biased liberal media occasionally airs their statements to that effect.

Saying it's easy to stay and fight instead of cut and run shows how your seriously damaged brain can't even process the simplest logic without inverting it.

The same legislators that voted to invade Iraq and now say we should withdraw, have recently voted against withdrawing; so whatever their mouths are saying their actions have contradicted and they have completely discredited themselves to intelligent, ethical people.

Do you think there are playing follow the leader?

Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War

For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war
since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost
them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from
office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If
convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins.
Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War

Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew
University, is author of "Transformation of War" (Free Press, 1991). He
is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading
list for officers. An interview with Martin Van Creveld. See also Nowhere To Run

metafilter

not such a great week to be Cheney....documents unveiled this week in Libby's upcoming trial indicate disclosure of classified documents was done, in fact, on the Vice-President's orders, as part of the larger campaign to sell war with Iraq and crush critics thereof:

meanwhile, the VP went hunting with pals over the weekend, ostensibly to blow off a little steam, but managed to blow holes in his hunting companion instead:
all of this only confirms what many have already suspected about the VP: he is not to be trusted with guns, government, or government secrets. :BL:

Shame Bush wasn't on the hunt...

...with his moose-antler cap...

...and a fur coat...

...and a target drawn on his ass.

if the republicans want to shoot each other power to them.

- js.

What's the problem here anyway.
 

They were out hunting. They both had guns.

The other guy could have shot back u know.

I bet almost none of u dillweeds have ever eaten what u killed.

U just let others kill for you.

Pay attention pls.

Maybe he deserved it, he is a lawyer after all. :CG:

Are you saying that Cheney is a cannibal?

:AP: :BL:

:BL:
:hystery:

Letterman's Top Ten Excuses For Dick Cheney:

10. "Heart palpitation caused trigger finger to spasm."

9. "Wanted to get the Iraq mess off the front page."

8. "Not enough Jim Beam."

7. "Trying to stop the spread of bird flu."

6. "I love to shoot people."

5. "Guy was making cracks about my lesbian daughter."

4. "Thought the guy was trying to go gay cowboy on me."

3. "Excuse? I hit him didn't I?"

2. "Until Democrats approve Medicare reform, we have to make some tough choices for the elderly."

1. "Made a bet with Gretzky's wife."

:uzi:

and from the Daily Show:
:CG:

and from the White House press corps:
:hystery: