Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
I wonder if the idiots in the debate THAT I AM WATCHING have seen this? I doubt it.
These I-D-I-O-T-S are spooky!
Nope and it won't be welcome news when they get home either.
DRINKS ARE ON ME, I WILL EVEN BUY THEM ONE...HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Kucinich just said the OPPOSITE of what you posted!! What a MORON!!
Obama is doing the Australian Walk-About
Obama sucks
So does Hillary.
Actually, they all do and isn't breck girls hair sooooo pretty tonight?
HEH.
I am in a wonderful mood. Good news is coming every single day, the media has been forced, dragged, kicking and screaming into having to report it and the American people are just starting to see it.
Happy days are here again....dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum....hahahaha
Singing now, so be happy you aren't in range.
Don't worry...beeeeeeeeeeee happy!
LOLOL, thanks now THAT will be in my head all freaking night..LOL
night
You're all right...we should be celebrating that victory is right around the corner.
After all, we're on pace for the 11th straight month of 70+ US soldier deaths. Before this stretch, the longest steak of 70+ deaths was three months (Nov. '04 - Jan. '05).
Iraqi Civilian deaths have also been higher each and every month during 2007 when compared to the same month in 2006.
If you guys call this success, I hate to see what Iraq looks like when you admit failure.
Glad I needed some water, cause everyone KNOWS, I never let stupidity go unanswered.
http://victorycaucus.com/index.p...ortal&
Itemid=79
Go there, look at the right side of the screen then take your lies and play in traffic.
Every statement you just made was a lie.
Try listening to our troops when they tell you they are seeing success, because right now you sould like no more than a Kossack.
We are seeing success and I admitted there is much work to be done but SURRENDER IS NOT AN OPTION.
Get THAT through that thick skull.
Now, back to my movie.
Well it's this way. Good news from Iraq means our Troops are doing their jobs. And the surge is working.
I don't get as many death notices as before, maybe twice a week now.
sometimes none.
I want to give General Petraeus & our Troops the chance that was promised them by the idiots that want to take it all back now.
I wish I could take their jos away from them. I'm talking about congress.
If congress would shut up and let our guys do their jobs people here would see things are getting better.
PS- No I don't like death, but our Troops need our support so either support them or shut to he!! up Steve!!!
Here's a number for you, Steve: 2,973.
All killed on one day.
Can you guess what day that was? Go on, I bet you can. I'll even give you a hint; 343 were my brother and sister fire fighters...
Trolls. Morons. Losers.
Thank you NZ Bear for the TVC relaunch with FACTS for reid-huggers!
Of course, he won't be back because he can't support the drivel he's spouting and can't stand the success our troops are having. I'm so glad I'm not a lib living in perpetual doom and gloom and just waiting for the next depressing thing to embellish with a lie and a "gotcha"
The lefties can't take it. They've been exposed for the drooling knuckle-draggers they really are. We've found a way to take major power dumps in their Wheaties and they wanna call foul.....
Piss off you Leftinistra scumbags....go eat shit and bark at the moon.
wow, solo, very intelligent response.
You guys are so weird. Step back and look at the graph. This is GOOD news, as far as you're concerned???!!!???
Man, the 2008 election is going to be a cakewalk, because you can't even size up the opposition honestly.
That is also something your leader, The Worst President Ever, and his Puppetmaster do -- Remember "Bring 'em on!" "Last throes!" "Dead enders!"
Seriously, has the Bush administration made ONE correct decision when it comes to Iraq?
Anyway, if you want to call it surrender, that's your choice.
But what did it mean, then, when Bush announced that major combat operations were over and that we and our allies had PREVAILED?
I don't call that "surrender." I call that "prevailing."
LOL!!!!!
You right-winger idiots are really getting desperate when you trumpet this tiny, laughably small uptick in the poll numbers.
Listen retards, Americans realize the war was a MISTAKE and it was BASED ON LIES.
They want our troops brought home. The only people interested in keeping them in the pointless Iraq bloodbath are you chickenhawk cowards who cheer on this war from behind your keyboards and yet (like your hero Bush) are too chickensh*t to actually go fight in this immoral, illegal war.
You keep referring to those who oppose this war as some sort of "far left" tiny fringe, but it is the MAJORITY of Americans.
Oh, and WHERE THE F*CK are the WMDs (that was why Bush said we had to invade Iraq). Do you retards even remember?
Frankly, you Nazis scare me a hell of a lot more than Al-Qaeda.
The Democrats would like nothing more than to have the Iraq war/ocupation debate still going on strong by election time in '08.
Then my dear delusional Republicans you will see (and feel) how the American people is "for the war" as you guys put it.
So please Republicans, make it a cake walk for the Democrats. Continue to support the war into 08.
solo.
You need a Rabies shot.
OH and see a Doctor, you might be going nuts out of frustration of 4+ years of getting so many "good news " out of Iraq.
You might also try to go after the Iraqi Politicians that are taking off for a vacation in August. Remember we were supposed to buy them time with the "surge". Well, here's another piece of "Good news" for you pal..... The Iraqi Politicians after accomplishing nothing, zilch, cero, nada, not a darn thing....Are going to be toasting you and the delusional Right with Champagne while in Can Cun....
WHen it comes to your unconditional support for a bunch of militias, crooks, and terrorists that compose the "Iraqi Governement" What's next for you guys? Develop a national campaign where you come out with slogans like "Hit me I like it rough" or how about "The GOP and the Jail Bitch Syndrome", or "we surge, you vacation", or "Let's trow a trillion to the wall and seee if it sticks".
You are angry with Democrats that want our troops sacrifice to be honored with a bit more respect from the Iraqi Government, but say nothing about Iraqi politicians?
Man I can see how you guys "support" our troops from your Lazy Boys!! What a bunch of traitors!!
If the news were so good why does the White House want to postpone the September report until November?
Just more shuck and jive from this mis-administration like the Iraq study group report. 
Hawk at 12:01 AM,
Relevance?
Remember this: The Presidenet of the US on 9/11/2001 didn't think it was important enough of an issue to have a Commission look into how your (almost) 3000 brothers and sisters were killed.
When the commission was put together anyway, he underfunded it, stonewalled it, and then had his people (Condi) lie to it.
If the President of the US cares so little, why should anyone else?
One has to wonder, as I have often on the blog, why when good news comes out, when the media finally starts reporting it, when Americans slowly start seeing it, why it angers, upsets and seems to threaten the surrender crowd.
Its interesting to watch ya'll try to spin it, distort it, lie about then wave it off.
The trend we are seeing of good news coming from Iraq is a good thing.
Hoping these results from the American people will become a "trend" too.
Some of you may continue to wish for defeat, but we understand the need for success.
I can see that Iraq is going good all the nutballs are out defending how we should surrender.
And knock off the barking at solo.
You want to fight for something, then tell your reps NO on Law of the Sea
and Visa Waiver Program.
At least this way I can tell if you people want to save America or not.
Cassie, unfortunately some do not want to save America nor protect America.
Thats ok though because people such as us have stopped waving them off and saying, they mean nothing and we have stood up, now in GREAT numbers and growing, and are speaking out loudly and we seem to drowning out their shrill screeching.
Perhaps we should have taken this battle to them earlier, our bad, but we are now and I see more and more people starting to understand that we must stand firm and together, speak up, call our reps and do our part to give the soldiers what they continue to tell us they need.
Support.
It is all they ask, and those that cannot give them what they are asking for, aren't worth our breath.
spree.
The answer to your question is simple my friend.
The reason why no one wants to put too much into the latest "good news" is because "good news" always turn into Bull Shit with this Administration.
How many times did you hear "we are making progress, and we are turing the corner"from the lips of the liar in Chief?
Why are you so surprised that people don't jump in the wagon at the first sign of progress with the kind of record for B.S that the Right has? You guys are amaizing!!!
Is it your idea that after making mistake, after mistake in the pre-war preparation, and post war management, no one should doubt the latest "good news" comming from Iraq?
Let me tell you something. I for one expected good news from Iraq when we sent 30,000 additional troops for the surge. The question here is the sustainability of the gains that our soldiers have made possible. As in what happens when the Iraqi soldiers take over the hard earned terriotories gained, and as usual simply let the militias, and insurgents walk back in again.
Is not that any one is angry because there's progress in Iraq as you put it, but more a question of how you interpret progress. In my opnion either you are very naive, or are not well informed, so please let me ask you the following questions to see from what angle you see events in Iraq.
What happens when the soldiers from the "surge" have to go back home because their rotation is over? What makes you think that the Iraqi Army will hold unto the gains or "the good news" ?????????????
What happens to the gains if the Iraqi Government falls appart or can't agree to anithing????
All these are valid questions because our gains Sir, are Military and there was never a question that our troops would be succesfull in this or any other surge IN THE SHORT RUN. The question is, and has always been the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people desire to live together WHEN ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO THE CONTRARY.
No one argues that the U.S. Military can accomplish this or any other mission. Every one with a brain however doubts that the U.S. Army can give the Iraqi people and Government what it takes to make the compromises necessary to live in peace.
You see that's why the Military does not do Nation Building no matter how many "surges" you do. Come to think about it all you guys used to be very, very much against Nation Building....So what happened????
Are you willing to apologize to Clinton now???
Clinton? Some moonbat moron invoked Clinton? The guy is/was/will ever remain a class-act loser.
Name for me ONE war in history that didn't have mistakes and wasn't ill prepared?
snooper.
Clinton, you know the guy you accused of Nation Building in the Balkans, befoe you started supporting Bush's Nation Building in Iraq with no problem at all..... THAT CLINTON.
gil, "my friend", I wasn't even blogging when Clinton was President, so please save your rhetoric for thse who were.
Lumping us together with what "others" said is like me saying you are as rabid as Kossacks.
So if you are going to do it, so can I.
YOU are as rabid as Kossacks that hate the military and hate America.
Does this mean that everything the far far left says can be applied as YOUR words?
If so, I have been going about this all wrong and I am going to have even MORE fun now I know THAT is the standard that you hold.
Thanks.
Hawk.
Who is asking for perfection here as the standard?
Why don't you ask a more pertinent question. How many wars have ever been won by making nothing but mistakes?
Wow Snooper...did YOU say Clinton was Nation Building.
Please gil, show us where Snooper said that.
I am all ears.
Spree.
If you can't take the answer, don't ask the question.
Check the attitude, gil.
And if you'd ever STUDIED warfare, you would know that every war has it's fair share of mistakes, some wars more mistake-ridden than others, case in point, the war of northern aggression here in the U.S.
gil, "my friend", I have no problem with the answers, what I have a problem with is YOU claiming quite falsely that I, or this blog, made statements that were never made, in fact, could not have been made because this blog wasn't even created yet.
So either use OUR statements when "quoting us", or bug off.
Simple really.
Can't handle the truth, perhaps you need a shrink.
Hawk.
You insist on asking the same question again.
So let me ask you again to re-frace the question into "How many wars have been won by making nothing but mistakes"?
Answer by the way is none.
Unless of course your studies in Warfare can contradict me, and you can produce a war won when the "Leader' fighting it made nothing but mistakes..... Most of them ADMITTED by now if I might add.
Nothing BUT mistakes? Thats where your ignorance shows gil, there have been plenty of things that have gone well.
Maybe if you stop trying to lie, distract and distort, you might actually be able to debate.
As it is, you sound like a two yr old on crack.
This latest counterinsurgency that Petraeus has implemented has gone SPLENDIDLY well and good news is coming out every day, EVEN in the MSM.
Try catching up on the news jill.
.
spree.
OK you have decided to take a pass in debating the issues that you raised, and that I was answering, focusing instead on who said what to whom.
I don't care to argue about that.
I was simply answering in a rather lenghty and pointed way your question of;
"Why when good news come out, why it angers, upsets, and seems to threaten the surrender crowd"
I noticed you did not answer any of my remarks, instead as I already said, you passed.
By the way "Friend" the surrender crowd is about 70 % of your compatriots, and it includes an awful lot of retired Generals that had the top positions in the Iraq war.... In fact all of them for the most part.
OH, and we don't want to surrender... We simply want to correct a very big mistake. You see when some one ask for a change in plans because the plan did not work, that's not called surrender.... That's called having a brain.
But then again is simpler for you guys to insult than it is to try to understand. No problem, your insults only marginalize you more and more.
Of course it might be a tactic directly proportional to your no doubt bast "studies" about war. I am sure the studies tell you that the way to win a war is by insulting your way to the dwindling support of the people. Support, that stands now at just the Right Wing base and not a soul more in the entire world let alone America.
I wander which military genious started that trend of wining wars by insulting the very same people they needed to win the wars? Who did that Napoleon maibe, or Alexander? it most have worked because that's all you guys do, so who am I to judge.
So, go right on to "victory" trough slogans, spin, and insults. I am sure that's what they teach you at the Point in Military Tactics 101.
....... But don't be surprised if in 08 a bunch of us "idiots" out there decided to give Republicans the boot (again) . We never studied Military History, or Military Tactics.... But we did try to convey to your side our displeasure when it came to Bush's policies in Iraq ... But you continue to ignore us, and continue to insult us, so I guess we'll just have to remind you again that we did not appoint you guys to insult us, we appointed you guys to PRODUCE.
And the only thing you did produce was insults. Sorry "Friend" but that's not going to work in 08. We needed results not saliva.
Wellington defeated Napoleone at Waterloo, Alexander was murdered.
Shall I continue? Shall we discuss the Pharoahs, perhaps, or the Ceasars, or the house of Herod, who took the throne of Israel during Roman occupation, displacing the Euclid rabbi's with the Pharisee's?
Or shall we discuss Stonewall Jackson, who bled to death in his saddle? Or the exploits of Forrest and his raids behind Union lines to disrupt their supply routes?
Mayhap we should even discuss William Tecumseh Sherman (may he burn in hell) and his march to the Atlantic, burning everything in sight?
History is my sandbox, gil, and you don't even have a SPOON, let alone a shovel, to come play in it.
Again, I will say this, one last time; drop the attitude.
Last warning.
Obvioulsy Jill hasn't been reading the news. The RESULTS of the surge are awesome and undeniable to anyone that is capable of reading and has a brain.
So maybe that saliva is just you drooling jill.
Hawk.
Did any of these guys you mentioned won any war by insulting their way into the very same people that were supposed to help them?
Did Wellington spin his victory at Waterloo, or did he win it in the field? Is hard to argue with a victory is it not? So what was it ?
Wellington saying "It's haaaaarddd it's so haaaarddddd" as Bush so often does, Or Wellimgton letting victory speck for itself. Maibe Wellington could have said to Bush if he was alive; "Yes Mr. Bush victory is hard to achieve, but especially so if you don't know how to plan for it"
You see my friend, I am no Military Historian and I am not pretending to have all the answers. But I do know when some one is BS'ing us into prolonging a war that did not go right, just to end his term in office, and to see if this "new" surge will finally do the trick. And I do know THAT some one (Bush), is the same one that "decided" us into mistake after mistake in the pre-war preparations, and post war execution. And I do know that I would be a fool to give that same "decider" guy, the credibility he no longer has or deserves, to continue to "decide" our way into still more mistakes.
You see Sir. people followed Alexander, Napoleon, Jakson and even Sherman because they did produce results and won real victories not because they had an Army of spinners working for them. How the world has changed, I am sure Stonewall Jackson would have had a cick out of that one.
So, how about if we all drop the attitude and you guys stop calling people that do not agree with Bush's policies "The surrender crowd" , or "cut and run", or "Surrendecrats" or all the funny names you excell at, instead of excelling at producing some real results in Iraq.
OH and by the way Sir, There's no proof that Alexander was murdered, and I do agree that Sherman if there is any justice in the after-life, needs to be burning in hell for all eternity.
And in the past Leaders were Leaders because they lead by example. Wellington, Napoleon, Alexander, and just about every Military Leader worth his/her mustard was out there with the troops fighting along side with them, or at the very least living in a society that did not allow for "voluntary Armies " in a so called "war of survival" as Bush conveniently puts it.
I'm going to give you just a few simple little points here.
As you stated, you are NOT a military historian, you obviously have NOT studied the effects on morale of our troops in the field that telling them how they have "lost the war" has on them, especially by members of the Senate and the House. It's bad enough when the populace does it, but the effects tend to escalate into the negative when elected officials argue that vein.
We have never stated on this site that we are 100% behind everything Bush does, nor will we. That would be indicitive of a lack of being able to reason, or to think for ourselves. We have our disagreements with the administration, however, but he IS the Commander in Chief of our armed forces and ultimately if we are to make sure our troops are up to the task in the field, we have to trust that there are things, that we, the general public, don't know about what is going on.
THIS is why we call them the surrender crowd.
Arm chair quarterbacking doesn't cut it during war time.
And history does show what happens if we pull our forces out of a region before we have done everything we need to do.
I'm sure the people of South Vietnam would have plenty to say on that matter...
These trolls are retarded. Who opened the cage?
Salon did, They quoted us. The crazies always come out when they do that.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...805391/?
src=hsn
same ones?
Hawk.
Arm chair quarterbacking me?
Funny you mention that. Let me give you a list of Generals that were in the "quarteback position" and that were "sacked" or "retired: by Mr. Bush for not taging the party line.
Lt. Gen Eric Shinseki Chief of Staff U.S. Army, Lt. Gen William Odom Director of N.S.A., Maj General Paul Eaton Training Command Iraq forces, Marine Lt. General Anthony Zinni Commander of Iraqi Force Central Command, Lt General Marines Greg Newbold Commander of the First Marine Division in Iraq, Marine Lt. General Joseph Hoar Commander U.S. Forces in Iraq, Admiral William Crowe Jr. Commander 7th Fleet and Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff under Regan, Lt. General John Batiste Commander First Infantry Division in Iraq, Lt. General Bernard Trainor, and the list can go on, and on, and on.
These Generals are no "Arm Chair quarterbacks" Sir. These Generals all understand that is their duty to speak out, and they are not afraid to "lower the moral of the troops" because they are the troops. THEY SPEAK FOR THE TROOPS SIR.
One more thing, All these Generals feel like I do that the THE REASON A SOLDIER GOES TO WAR IS TO PROTECT OUR LIBERTY TO DESENT WITH POWER.... OR IN OTHER WORDS TO QUESTION POWER.
That friend is what Democracy is all about. When you call people that don't agree with this war's policies "Defeatist" or the "Surrender crowd" is nice to remind you who the "crowd" is Sir. Is Generals, Diplomats, Heads of State, 70% of the American People, the entire Arab population, most of the world, Brown the new Prime Minister of England, Republicans like William Baker,Sen. John Warner, Sen. Voinovich, Sen; Lugar, Sen. Hagel, and many many others that unlike you believe that to question a policy that has not worked is not only necessary in a Democracy, but a patriotic duty.
This "patriotic duty" that you're talking about encourages our enemy to continue to operate against us. Why do you think al-Queda goes on the record endorsing members of the Democratic party? They're mocking us when they do so.
Again, you've not studied military history nor command and leadership. Apply a little logic to your thinking, here; if you were to command an operation, even a small one, would you keep yourself surrounded with individuals telling you why it can't be done why it can't be done why it can't be done when you have other people who are telling you why it can be done, HOW it can be done, and when they will HAVE it done?
History has shown that there are two kinds of command leadership in the military, those who command well in peace, and those who command well in war. Very seldom do you find someone who can do both.
Take a look, for instance, at George S. Patton. He was BARELY tolerable to his superiors DURING a time of war, but during combat, given the latitude to do what he did best, he achieved amazing victories with those under his command.
This is a man who did not fare well during times of peace.
As to this being a democracy, we are NOT a democracy, we are a representative republic, and the military is a dictatorship that serves the republic.
Our troops don't need civilians to "protect them." They're trained to do that themselves, and to protect us. Our troops need us to not hinder them, but to let them do the jobs we send them into harms way to do. You can take that to the bank.
Spree.
"The crazies always come out"
But I am the one with the attitude!!!
Tell me guys, are you always this fair and balanced in your points of view?
Do you include in the "crazies" crowd Generals, Army troops fighting in Iraq, Heads of State around the World, about 70% of the American poeple, etc, etc? .... I am starting to sound like a broken record here.
Hawk
One final thought.
In the Summer of 2006 the Israelis as you know invaded Lebanon. Olmert the Prime Minister of Israel desided that ge could use Israel's bastly superior Military power to destroy Hezbollah once and for all.
The mission as we all now know backfired. The Israeli people soon found themselves the target of a barrage of rockets, Hezbollah fought back while at the same time gave the Israeli Army all the terrain they wanted to take. The Lebanese Democratic Government once a pride of Democracy for the Middle East, was near collapse. The Israeli military soon found themselves fighting a war of attrition that was rapidly deteriorating into a quagmire..... SOUNDS FAMILIAR????????
The Israeli Army, and Olmert the Prime Misnister reacted by pulling the plug in the operation. Or as you guys put it by "surrendering", "cutting and running" etc, etc.
Only the Israeli Army, the Israeli Leadership, and THE ISRAELI PEOPLE did not look at it as defeatism, but as stoping a bad plan from becoming a debacle.
Now you can call the Israeli people many things, but you can call them cowards, or cut and run types. So if the Israeli people understood that they had made a mistake, and pulled out acting LIKE MATURE ADULTS why can't we?
All the same arguments could have been made by the Israeli society..... "We can't give the terrorists a victory this big" "we can cut and run", "If we live Lebanon will fall into chaos" etc, etc.
The Israeli people understood that when you make a mistake, there are no good solutions. And they took the solution that saved their own people first. That's what supporting the troops is all about people.
We trounce without mercy on ALL ignorant trolls such as yourself.
Our gloves came off and we threw them away and then burned them.
Morons like you is why this country is in the fucked up fix it is in.
Your kind of trolled us almost into oblivion.
No longer are we Mr Nice Guy.
If you don't like the treatment shut the fuck up, drop dead, go to hell, piss up a rope or whatever it takes to make your lamed ass die.
We have been playing Mr Nice Guy since that fucking jerk Carter. No longer.
Don't like it?
Fuck off.
Hawk.
al Quaida is using Iraq as a recruitment station and you know it, so please stop pretending will you.
Who cares who Osama endorses? What if tomorrow he shows up endorsing Bush, will you ask for his resignation?
I guide myself for who in America, and the Democratic world OPPOSES BUSH'S POLICIES. You should do the same.
As for my logic. If I was in a position of Leadership, I would sorround myself with people that tell me WHAT IS GOING ON, not if it can be done or not.
You do not want people with an agenda in the desicion making. You want people with unviased, clear, SUBSTANCIATED information. The last thing you want is a Chalaby character bull shitting America into a war, because Cheney and Bush decided to make a war fit the case, and not the case fit the war.
We do have a patriotic duty to speak out. al-Quaida is now the pretext for you guys to try to quiet 70% of Americans? What's next make Americans vote Republican because if not al-Quaida will get a boost? Are you for real????
As for the Representative Republic observation..... Again Sir, let's not get into semantics. We are and live in a Represntative Republic otherwise called a DEMOCRACY by EVERY ONE from Bush on down.
snooper.
When an ignorant has nothing to say he always turn to insults and pretends that he accomplished something. In your case the only thing you did accomplish is to show me that for some extrange reason you were pink gloves while trying to type, that you are very scared, and possibly going hysterical, and crying every night with your Mommy because the country is " in a fucked up fix in" ... Maibe that's why you ware pink gloves , and that you don't understand that it is a Republican at the helm of YOUR "fucked up country".
Now as to what you think or say about me..... Sir, I sincerely could care less if you want to insult me, or kill me.
To me you are a nobody with a real "attitude" since you all started talking about mine.
OH and by the way I would stop calling our country "fucked up" according to hawk al-Quaida might get a hold of the statement and use it for propaganda.Not to mention the fact that you are demoralizing the troops.
Pal, I could care less if you live or die let along what you think of me. So, keep on insulting for all I care.
Hawk,
"...you obviously have NOT studied the effects on morale of our troops in the field that telling them how they have "lost the war" has on them, especially by members of the Senate and the House. It's bad enough when the populace does it, but the effects tend to escalate into the negative when elected officials argue that vein."
This sounds to me like you're saying that debate about the pros and cons of a war should be silenced during wartime. If our elected representatives in Congress cannot openly discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly regarding a war, then the president basically would become a dictator whose authority and judgement could not be questioned in wartime. Why have a Congress then? There is a fringe group on the extreme right that thinks this is a good idea, but I think it would be devastating to democracy. An unscrupulous president would have an incentive to ensure that America is always at war.
As for the effects that such defeatist talk might have on some of our troops' morale, how do you think that compares to the effects on morale caused by extended/repeat tours of duty in a conflict with no end in sight, or the effects on morale caused by such national disgraces as the recent (current?) Walter Reed mismanagement fiasco? (I'm not trying to be snippy here, so please take this question at face value.)
"...but he IS the Commander in Chief of our armed forces and ultimately if we are to make sure our troops are up to the task in the field, we have to trust that there are things, that we, the general public, don't know about what is going on."
Something tells me you won't have this attitude toward a Democratic CIC. You put a lot of faith in government here. I'm sure there's plenty we will never know. That's the problem. Unfortunately, from where I'm sitting, it looks like it is the administration, not the general public, that doesn't have a solid grip on what is going on. Even I knew that occupying Iraq was going to be a disaster if the power vacuum created by Saddam's ouster wasn't filled immediately, as there were rival factions who would fight to take over. What the hell is Bush's excuse?
I think Bush is primarily interseted in proving correct, at any cost, some ideas cooked up by men in silk ties and $1,000 suits. Hence his unwillingness to alter the course of the American efforts in Iraq since to do so would be tantamount to an admission of failure (we're just getting around to a surge NOW?) He'll need those guys for job references in about a year and a half. Besides, if things don't work out to their liking, the neocons will just blame Bill Clinton and the next (poor bastard) president.
Please understand that there's a big difference between advocating "surrender" and suggesting that defending ourselves against Islamic terrorism can be done more effectively than playing whack-a-mole in the middle of a 1,000-year-old sectarian conflict.
Oh, one other thing
Hawk
(My original post appears to have been cut off.)
Oh, one other thing: This is perhaps a bit off-topic, but I noticed you mentioned "the war of northern aggression here in the U.S." in an earlier comment. I'll go out on a limb here and guess that you're a resident of a former Confederate state. Am I also correct in assuming that you wish that the Union had dissolved, or at the very least, simply left the seceeding states to their own devices? Had that happened, it might be safe to assume that America would not exist as we know it today as its land would consist of at least two separate countires, and perhaps more as the west was still being settled at the time. How do you think North America would have fared with regard to threats such as Hitler and the Soviet Union if we did not have the benefit of being one giant nation and the power that goes with it? (Be careful what you wish for.)
You sad-sacked moonbat idiots are pathetic.
Go ahead and believe your lies and the cum oozing from Moores mouth that you so lust for.
http://takeourcountryback-snoope...007/07/
why.html
Must be a fascinating place, the land of the 28-percenter.
JML & DP
Bush's presidency is devolving into an extended holding action. On Iraq his real priority is to delay the inevitable until he is off to Texas. In the end the guy could not even take responsibility of his actions as a man, prefering instead to pass the buck to some future President.
Donal Rumsfeld, the fired Defense Secretary, once famously described the Iraqi Insurgency as a few "dead-enders" who refused to acknowledge that the world around them had changed. How ironic is that increasingly that phrase can be applied as a self-portrait for the Bush Administration, and the 28% of war-with-no end supporters on this blog.
Is not only Iraq when it comes to Bush, and the Right. Is embryonic stem cell research, is global warming, , is immigration, is health care, and so many other issues. In all of them Bush and Republicans stand and fight their last battles before they are simply run over by history.
True dead-enders to the end these people.
wow DP, amazing that 14 percenter landed here :o)
gil, your nonsense is only tolerated because YOU make the perfect example of a far left liberal that only knows talking points and holds no real facts or values of your own.
Remember that
Amazing that GWB's approval rating is TWICE the DNcs. That is all telling right there.
So much for their "majority".
Snooper.
"amazing that GWB's approval rating is twice the DNC's so much for the majority"
Maibe you were born confused, but I notice this inclination of yours to obscure issues, and insult.
Let's see, the 14% approval rating you make reference that Congress has is about job approval correct?
But if Congress did not start the war, or is conducting this war in any way shape or form. How can you conclude that the 14 % approval rating has to do with Bush having more support than Congress in the conduct of the Iraq war is beyond me, or any one with a brain.
The polls against the war are against Bush, not Congress.
You are confusing polls, by comparing general job approval ratings Vs. Americans against Bush's policies in Iraq.
"So much for the majority"
NO pal, so much for your grasp on reality.
Congress authorized the war gil, so stop trying to distort things. You cannot handle the truth, then go turn your tv back on and quit trying to play with the big boys.
The polls are what Snooper mentioned and guess what, Congress is at 14%, FAR lower than Bush.
YOU need to grasp reality, support for our actions in Iraq is on the rise as the graph shows, progress in Iraq has been far greater than anyone expected this soon after the full compliment of troops arrived and Congress continues their freefall with the LOWEST NUMBERS IN POLLING HISTORY.
Deal with it gil, despite your desire to see America lose.
We won't.
Oh and just because I am EXCITED.... The Washinton Times/Fishwrap linked to us today...weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
http://
video1.washingtontimes.co...urrected_1.html
.
spree.
"Play with the big boys"
That's a good one!!!!
You consider yourself a "big boy" , and snooper that can't finish a sentence without insulting some one, or using a bad word, is another "big boy"!!!
Boys I agree you are. The "Big" I take it as a reference to you all's weight.
spree.
I fail to see how a 14% job approval rating by a Congress full of Republicans, Vs. a 28% job approval for Bush Vs. an Iraqi Government on vacation in the middle of our surge , is going to win the war in Iraq.
Can you please explain that one to me?
As for me wanting America to loose.... Yes, as much as you want al-Quaida and Iran to win.
You forget the Dems have majority. Once again, your distraction techniques do NOT work here gil.
The post is about the FACT that support for the war is inching up, that is a NYT/CBS graph done BY those organizations and you cannot deny that support IS growing now that the MSM has been forced to start reporting all news, NOT just the bad.
So, if you cannot dispute it, you try what you always try, to distort or distract from it.
Not working.
Either dispute it with another poll showing Americans support or BUG OFF.
Simple: Distraction, distortion and lying, which is the far liberal's, such as yourself, tactics and they do NOT fly here.
See ya gil, your little games have been tolerated only to show my readers how simple minded you and those like you are.
So full of BDS that you cannot admit the truth when it is staring you in the face by way of a graph.
Thanks for showing us the perfect example of what we have said time and time again.
It was appreciated, but your usefulness has been used up.
Actually I consider ANYONE with a brain, a big boy gil.
Something YOU will never understand.
What a bunch of fucking whiners! The surge is working allright - for the Shia and Sunni it's working. ha ha
gil,
You have to forgive poor snooper. He's a delusional marine wannabe who thinks he's the incarnation of John Wayne.. And Ms. Beth is your typical, dried up religionist spinster who takes out her frustration on the poor and indigent of the world.
Hey woodie, Snooper has served, fought for YOUR right to be an asshole as well as his son getting ready to ship off to Iraq.
Perhaps you should actually KNOW what you are talking about before speaking, you won't sound like such an ass that way.
Or maybe you would, actually, you probably would anyway.
Sounds to me like YOU are whining heywoodie....poor thing, can't handle the truth, can ya..heh
I'd love to oblige that nick name...with a block of C-4...
See, what did I tell ya'll in part two, the far left liberals canot handle the thought of success, progress or victory and are SOOOOO pissed that the American public is finally seeing the good news and support is increasing.
Too bad.
Go bury your heads a little farther in the sand folks, this trend is good and nothing you say can distract or distort from that.
Good trick but you folks have been using it for too long, we are on to you.
Go play with the Kossacks where you belong, where everyone can deny reality.
Welcome to the carnival of the idiots Hawk, seems they don't like that the poll was REDONE and came out even better...hahahaha
So invested in defeat they cannot even see beyond their desire and hatred of America.
If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.
The only way they know to fight is dirty. Name calling and other such childish tactics.
The truth is something they can't handle, because they've been spoonfed such of diet of SHIT through the years by their liberal gods, the MSM.
LOL
Y'all know heywood is raoul in disguise, right? And we called out gil and exposed him for what he was months here:
Jihadist Trolls Part One
and here:
Jihadist Trolls Part Two
AND gil is the one that keeps thinking Spree is a man
Trolls. Why aren't they whining about troops STILL in Kosovo where the Clintonistra said they would be out by "tear's end".
WHICH YEAR?
Oh. Wait. A Leftinistra lied. I guess for the Party of Lies that is OK.
My bad.
Hawk...how big a block ya need?
Nothing too big, I would think. Just make sure the fuse is long enough so that when I feed it into the left ear it feeds through the right ear and I can pack the empty head full of enough to make a nice boom.
Hawk, You should have no trouble, after all they're all empty headed anyway.
Bang, boom away........
damn moron trolls
Commenting by HaloScan
