Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, July 2, 2008

New Iraq report calls progress satisfactory

July 2, 2008

Advertisement

— No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates.

Iraq's political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it's done so has been achingly slow.

The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" - almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks - enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues - are unsatisfactory.

In the past 12 months, since the White House released its first formal assessment of Iraq's military and political progress, Baghdad politicians have reached several new agreements seen as critical to easing sectarian tensions.

They have passed, for example, legislation that grants amnesty for some prisoners and allows former members of Saddam Hussein's political party to recover lost jobs or pensions. They also determined that provincial elections would be held by Oct. 1.

But for every small step forward, Iraq has several more giant steps to take before victory can be declared on any one issue.

Amnesty requests are backlogged, and in question is whether the new law will speed the release of those in U.S. custody. It also remains unclear just how many former Baath members will be able to return to their jobs. And while Oct. 1 had been identified as an election day, Baghdad hasn't been able to agree on the rules, possibly delaying the event by several weeks.

Likewise, militias and sectarian interests among Iraq's leaders still play a central role in the conflict. And U.S. military officials say they are unsure violence levels will stay down as troop levels return to 142,000 after a major buildup last year.

In the May progress report, one benchmark was deemed to have brought mixed results. The Iraqi army has made satisfactory progress on the goal of fairly enforcing the law, while the nation's police force remains plagued by sectarianism, according to the administration assessment.

Overall, militia control has declined and Baghdad's security forces have "demonstrated its willingness and effectiveness to use these authorities to pursue extremists in all provinces, regardless of population or extremist demographics," as illustrated by recent operations, the White House concludes.

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

The contention that conditions in Iraq have improved, or are improving, is a lie as long at the refugee situation remains the same, and the fact is that few refugees are returning to their homes, and a very high percentage of refugees are those with special skills and training, such as doctors, teachers and engineers.http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9679"One in five Iraqis have been displaced. According to the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migration in 2007, almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.4 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, up to 1.5 million were living in Syria, and over 1 million refugees were inhabiting Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Gulf States."

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

I take it that that is a spineless admission that your post is bogus.

0

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

Yup, the Bureau of Public Affairs, the AP, CNN, etc.---all 'baseless propaganda'. Pointless, senseless, ignorant, miopic, hate-filled, ridiculous, uninformed, unsubstantiated posts from you --- factual. You and the truth go together like peas and carrots, Forrest.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

That's interesting. I'd already googled it, jaywalker, and the references I found show that the list is mostly from 2004-- and it's a well-established fact that there was nothing but deterioration of humanitarian conditions at that point, and the list you posted is nothing but baseless propaganda.

0

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

Ya know, Bozo, I began to respond and then erased it. That report is from 3/24/08, find it yourself. You've got nothing and arguing with a fool like you is a waste of time.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

What year is that from jaywalker? Got a link? Or do you just like the "sound" of it, and think that spewing such dreck actually proves something?

0

Rationalanimal 5 years, 9 months ago

Things have to be bad for bozo when news relative to Iraq is good even from Marxist publications like:Associated Depressed and the Washington Compost.

0

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

Our Village Idiot says: "You made an assertion. You provided no evidence"You should know, 'cause that's all you do. Cite ANY evidence to support your 'claims'. The evidence you choose to ignore is in news stories, reports, actual video footage of all the infrastructure that has been built up. Find it yourself...ooh wait a minute, you're too stupid to surf the net or use TV for anything more than video games. Here's a small taste, mental midget:From the Bureau of Public Affairs, Under secretary of Public Affairs, March 24:Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water and electricity for the first time ever in Iraq. * Over 400,000 kids have up to date immunizations. * Over 1500 schools have been renovated and ridded of the weapons that were stored there so education can occur. 4000 more have been built or are under construction. The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off loaded from ships faster. * School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war. * The country had it's first 2 billion barrel export of oil last August The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war. * 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed compared to 35% before the war. * Elections are taking place in every major city and city councils are in place. * Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city. * Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets. * Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country. * Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers. * Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever. * Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs. Girls are allowed to attend school for the first time ever in Iraq. * Text books that don't mention Saddam Hussein are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.Iraq's 2008 budget for health care is $950 million; Saddam Hussein's regime spent $16 million on health care in 2002. Power plants, water and sanitation facilities, bridges and roads are being rehabilitated. The value of the new Iraqi dinar has risen 25 percent in the last 6 monthsWomen's Centers have been opened throughout the country to offer vocational training and educational opportunities. More than 32,000 secondary school teachers and 3,000 supervisors trained. Entry-level teacher monthly salaries raised from a pre-war $5 to $66Yup! Sure sounds like a "humanitarian disaster and a failed state"!Not sure why you think I'm some sort of "BushCo" backer. Just because I find you mind-numbingly ignorant and that you can't sustain an argument with any substance does not mean I'M a 'leaner'. Anyone who can read, hear, or see...liberal OR conservative....is able to witness the proof. I assume that all you have to go on are non-facts, non-issues, non-substance, in short.. nonsense. Forrest Gump could out-wit you.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

I don't want to be anywhere near when all that self-puffery of yours deflates, jayhawker."You ridiculously say there's no economy and no healthcare and no education - I state evidence to the contrary and your response "You made an assertion. You provided no evidence. Is it a bit of an exaggeration for me to say there is "no" economy, healthcare or education? Yes, a bit. There is some available, to a few, but for the most part, Iraq is precisely what I said-- a humanitarian disaster and a failed state.Now run along-- I'm sure there's some BushCo a** that needs kissing.

0

Rationalanimal 5 years, 9 months ago

Barrack Milhous Hussein Obama, omnipresent on each side of every issue. Although it depends, sort of, he's refining his position, indefinitely...he'll get back to you.

0

Godot 5 years, 9 months ago

OOPS, just in, Obama clarifited his position, again. Now we have at least four positions on the Iraq "war" from Obama.Who is this masked man, and what does he really believe? Only the Shadow knows.

0

Rationalanimal 5 years, 9 months ago

"What's truly scary is that BushCo and their sycophants actually believe their BS."What's truly scary is your ability deny truth without the slightest degree of moral resistance.Sad that good news/success for our military evokes bitterness, hatred and disappointment for people like bozo. When our troops come home victorious (unless of course we elect Jimmy Carter II Barrack Milhous Hussein Obama), they will have vanquished our foreign enemies as well as the Eastern block of red patriots dba the Democrat Party.

0

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

Bozo, umm.. huh? You ignorantly said Iraq is the most dangerous place in the world, I listed a number of more dangerous spots ....and your response -" let's invade"? You ridiculously say there's no economy and no healthcare and no education -- I state evidence to the contrary and your response ------ 'it's a humanitarian disaster'???????????? Wha...um..er..who...wha...HUH? There IS a burgeoning economy. There ARE brand new schools AND hospitals everywhere.. and "you missed nothing?" No no, pookums, you KNOW nothing. As far as being 'willfully ignorant', well that just makes no sense unless your paranoid mind thinks (oops, oxymoron, apparently) that I'm a neo-con. Sorry, not. I kinda like to think for myself and filter both sides through. You should try it. But remember, baby steps.I will give you credit for "petty PR piffle". That's a lot of alliteration for a simpleton like yourself (oops, sorry, 'nother big word for ya. Take your time, I can smell your pathetically poor pea pod excuse for a brain smokin' from the strain).Your last retort is nowhere near the point and it's too easy to bat you aside. At least there are some intelligent posters I've had a chance to read that can support an argument, without going back I can remember Logicsound and Satirical, just to name a couple. There was even a pretty good link from Max, I think it was. May I suggest you stay in the shallow end of the pool, Bozo. Children should not try to have serious conversations with grown-ups. I don't know which way I'm voting in November, but I'd like to come out with my full endorsement for Bozo as our next Village Idiot in Chief.

0

spiderman 5 years, 9 months ago

from May 2003Washington - Wholesale prices plunged by a record 1.9 percent in April as the end of the Iraq war removed pressures on energy costs, which posted their largest drop in nearly 17 years. Operating capacity at factories nosedived to the lowest ebb since 1983.The big drop in the Producer Price Index, which measures the prices of goods before they reach store shelves, marked an about-face from March when higher energy prices, stoked by the war, helped to catapult wholesale prices up by a hefty 1.5 percent, the Labor Department reported.Thursday's report makes clear that inflation isn't a problem for the economy, but it might intensify fears about whether the United States is heading down a path of a destabilizing fall in prices.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 5 years, 9 months ago

Is it poll time again? How many here have been over to Iraq then and now? How many know the whole unbiased truth, not just what is put out there for us to read and hear?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

" citizens of Zimbabwe, Congo, Darfur, Sri Lanka, and Columbia would certainly disagree. Not to mention Mexico "Yep, those are really dangerous places. When do we invade?"But maybe that's what you meant when you said 'NO healthcare, NO education',"No, I missed nothing. Iraq is a humanitarian disaster, and this administration is incapable of doing anything to improve things. All they have to offer is petty PR piffle that impresses only the willfully ignorant such as yourself."And as far as there being no prospects for improvement, well, I guess that should mean that Iraq is already Edenesque. Otherwise, EVERY place has 'prospects for improvement', don'tcha think?"I think that pretty much sums up all the "progress" BS. Things were so horrible, they couldn't help to have got a little better, even though "a little better" is still absolutely abysmal.

0

spiderman 5 years, 9 months ago

more lies from BUSH / CHENEY !what about Afghanistan ?doing much worse ?

0

jaywalker 5 years, 9 months ago

Just _another _bozo says:"There are no facts of progress- only a reduction of extreme and total violence to a likely temporary lull of merely a hellhole of violence. The economy is still non-existent, basic services the same, no healthcare, no education, poor food supplies, more than 50% unemployment, and no prospects for improvement"Two days reviewing these strings and it's already obvious that this clown, Bozo, is running for Village Idiot. And I'm bettin' he's the incumbent. Allow me to parse....Iraq as a "hellhole of violence" AND from an earlier post "the most dangerous place in the world" --- citizens of Zimbabwe, Congo, Darfur, Sri Lanka, and Columbia would certainly disagree. Not to mention Mexico where 4500 police, military, and lawmakers have been killed in the last 18 months due to the wars against drug lords. In fact, there are many more murders every day in the U.S. than in Iraq. But don't let the facts get in the way of hyperbole, Bozo. (Sorry, that's a big, four syllable word. I'll give ya some time to catch up)"the economy is non-existent" --- there's no economy in Iraq? Re-he-he-eeeally?! That's too ignorant to respond to. Let's move on."basic services the same, no healthcare, no education," -- basic services are the same?....as what? Or do you just fling generalities like spitballs and see what might stick? Electricity, sanitation, and public transportation are much improved and modernized over Saddam's systems and becoming more widespread every day. CNN ran a piece on their marked improvement not two weeks ago. There are now more and better hospitals AND schools than there were and enrollment is dramatically increased since the Saddam regime, particularly in female attendance. But maybe that's what you meant when you said 'NO healthcare, NO education', I'm not fluent in idiotspeak."no facts of progress....no prospects for improvement" --- considering there have been numerous reports of marked progress over the last few months, including the AP piece this string is attached to, I'm guessing your reading comprehension skills need some work before your next attempt at the SAT's, Bozo. And as far as there being no prospects for improvement, well, I guess that should mean that Iraq is already Edenesque. Otherwise, EVERY place has 'prospects for improvement', don'tcha think? I mean, if your contention is that Iraq is down then it stands to reason that they have plenty of room to go ... I don't know.... up? I asked yesterday and Topjayhawk was kind enough to respond, but I gotta ask again...this clown is not a common representative of the posters here, is he?

0

Godot 5 years, 9 months ago

In the words of Ronald Reagan, "There you go again...."From the Politico:"Obama rewrites Iraq planBy MIKE ALLEN | 7/3/08 4:16 PM EST Text Size: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) promised primary voters a swift withdrawal from Iraq, in clear language still on his website: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." Not anymore. Heading into the holiday weekend, Obama and his advisers repudiated that pledge, saying he is reevaluating his plan and will incorporate advice from commanders on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month. A top Obama adviser said he is not "wedded" to a specific timeline, and Obama said Thursday he plans to "refine" his plan. "I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there," he told reporters in Fargo, N.D., according to CBS News. "When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." But he went on to maintain: "I have been consistent, throughout this process, that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake." David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, went even further during remarks Wednesday on CNN's "Situation Room," telling guest host John Roberts that Obama has actually advocated "a phased withdrawal, with benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, that called for strategic pauses, based on the progress on these benchmarks, and advice on the commanders on the ground."My prediction is that, if a political peace in Iraq is achieved before mid-January 2009, Obama will claim that he would have voted for the war if he had been able to do so, that his opposition to the war was misunderstood and misrepresented. He's just that kinda guy.

0

duplenty 5 years, 9 months ago

"You stated I had not learned from the last 8 years, but you failed to include any facts that proved your point. I"That's rich, coming from you.

0

chet_larock 5 years, 9 months ago

Satirical,Go ahead and add me to your "list". I don't care how you waste your time. I simply stated my opinion that I thought it would be extremely difficult for Obama to be more incompetent than GWB. For some reason you took that to mean I was saying Obama was incompetent to be POTUS, which was not correct. After I attempted to clarify my opinion, you then said I hadn't learned anything the past 8 years. That's all you said. Great argument. BTW, that's awesome that you have a list.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Chet_larock:Please learn how to make your point and not just paste a quote implying your argument.You stated I had not learned from the last 8 years, but you failed to include any facts that proved your point. I have concluded to no longer waste time attempting to argue with people who don't know how to make arguments. I will add you to the list.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Anxiousatheist:"If we are not bound by UN resolutions, satirical, how can we use the reasoning of UN resolutions to attack a country?"You are making the fallacy of combining the two the separate and distinct questions which I was answering. (1) The fact that the U.N., a coalition of nations recognized Saddam's egregious violations of their resolution supported the argument that Saddam was bad (along with the numerous other justifications). I never stated it was a separate independent justification, nor was it the sole justification for the invasion (as I stated earlier and you ignored).(2, my original argument) The fact that Bush had and didn't violate U.N. authority shows he was not a war criminal by U.N. standards, which doesn't matter anyway since the U.S. isn't bound even if he did violate. Again, I did not state that this authority alone is sufficient reasoning to attack Iraq."If Bush LIED.."Myself and others have countered these arguments so many times on LJWorld post it is ridiculous. He DID NOT LIE. And even if he did, the question you keep dodging is; how does this affect whether we should stay in Iraq or leave? You are just like so many liberals, you are stuck in the past. Perhaps I should start talking about Clinton or Jimmy Carter.

0

chet_larock 5 years, 9 months ago

"Nice unsubstantiated counter-argument. If there is one this the LJWorld blog needs more of, it is comments without any factual basis."Definitely, "So:you haven't learned anything from the last 8 years."-guy

0

screedposter 5 years, 9 months ago

"facts be damned.""the media reports, if you care to read them, state that life in Iraq is a hellhole, and it's not improving."-bozohttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070101283.html

0

screedposter 5 years, 9 months ago

"Hmm:the prez says he doesn't think about OBL that often, attacks in Afghanistan are up 40% and June saw the most US and coalition deaths since the invasion."Quagmire! Withdraw now! That'll teach al-Qaeda and the Taliban!

0

duplenty 5 years, 9 months ago

"We are searching for Bin Laden, and working on Afghanistan."Hmm...the prez says he doesn't think about OBL that often, attacks in Afghanistan are up 40% and June saw the most US and coalition deaths since the invasion.

0

Clint Gentry 5 years, 9 months ago

"Iraq's violation of U.N. resolutions gave him authority" to invade Iraq. - satirical"The U.S. is not bound by U.N. resolutions" - satiricalIf we are not bound by UN resolutions, satirical, how can we use the reasoning of UN resolutions to attack a country? You refuse to acknowledge the obvious contradiction in your statements! It's not your fault, you've been fed so many stories by BushCo. you probably don't know what to think.In other matters...Because congress approved of the invasion does not mean Bush is off the hook, that's just a red herring on your part. If Bush LIED to congress about evidence regarding an imminent danger, then he can still be held accountable for his failed war. Did congress do it's part to get to the bottom of the matter, No, I don't think so, but if evidence is withheld from them, or misrepresented, how can you blame them for jumping to conclusions? Keep defending W., as stated before, the shame brought by this administration will haunt them the rest of their lives, be careful whom you lay with satirical...

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Anxiousatheist:"This is confusing"See this is the problem when people choose to comment on the tail end of a discussion and make a counter argument to a point that you are not arguing, in a false belief they have refuted your original argument.Apparently I have to explain the argument up to this point and simplify everything for you... a claim was made that Bush was a war criminal because he did not have authorization from the U.N. to invade Iraq. I stated that Iraq's violation of U.N. resolutions gave him authority, and even if he didn't have authority it didn't matter because Bush got approval from Congress, therefore he is not a war criminal. "Iraq violated UN policies, that's why we had to go in"I was not stating that we HAD to go in because of the violations, I countered an argument that Bush violated U.N resolutions, when he in fact enforced them. Violations of the U.N. resolution was just one of the justifications given for invading Iraq, it was not the sole reason; we felt it was in our own interest to oust Saddam.The U.S. is not bound by U.N. resolutions, and the U.N. never enforces it own resolutions. Based on your previous tangential arguments, however, I feel you will still be confused regardless of how many times I explain myself to you or anyone else who wants to jump into the argument late.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 5 years, 9 months ago

Well thanks. But in general I just think it is funny reading all these post about stuff in papers and all humans have their own points of view and tend to show that view more than the other. Reporters are after all just human and at times might not be a objective as they think they are. The same as the dcers just funny.We are sitting here judging every thing and in all honesty have no clue what it is really like any where else in the world.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

mommaeffortx2...The problem with anecdotal reports from a single or small group of people is that it does not give a clear and objective indication of the situation as a whole. But I agree that reports from soldiers that the situation is improving is largely ignored by the left.

0

Clint Gentry 5 years, 9 months ago

"U.N. violations occurred, and we do not need the U.N. to decide when we use our military" - satiricalThis is confusing...Iraq violated UN policies, that's why we had to go in, but we don't have to adhere to UN policy? If we don't adhere to UN policy, why are we doing their dirty work? Are we in the UN? If we are, shouldn't we obey their policies? If we are not in the UN, how can you use their policies to justify our actions? Your starting to lack coherence "satirical"...

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 5 years, 9 months ago

i think it is funny ever one comments on pictures and reports based on reporters and dcrs that have no clue what it might really be like over there now and only show you what they want you to see whether right or left. Call or write some one over there and ask the men and woman on the ground that go outside the green zone or safe zone and see what they think that is the only true messure of how things are really going.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

chet..."Apparently neither have you"Nice unsubstantiated counter-argument. If there is one this the LJWorld blog needs more of, it is comments without any factual basis.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Anxiousatheist:I was fully aware weapon inspectors were in the country, I was unaware they were given full access since in the past they were not given full access. However, my earlier point is still valid that other U.N. violations occurred, and we do not need the U.N. to decide when we use our military. You seem to ignore the purpose of my comment was originally in reference to the statement that Bush was a war criminal not that I believe the war was justified because Saddam didn't allow in weapon inspectors.Also, as I have stated numerous times, today I would not support the invasion knowing what we know now, and in the future will require greater proof of WMD's. However, I am not the only one to blame. I also blame Bush, Congress, the media and the American people for this failure. If you somehow KNEW that Saddam didn't have WMD's despite all the evidence to the contrary then I congratulate you. But it was likely simply a guess. I never claimed mistakes weren't made in deciding to go to war, but that does not mean Bush is a criminal, and the bigger question is what do we do going forward.

0

chet_larock 5 years, 9 months ago

"So:you haven't learned anything from the last 8 years."Apparently neither have you.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Logicsound:"This is what I'm talking about. Critical of the war or President Bush, then we're "spewing hate"."I did not state that everyone who is critical of the war or Bush is spewing hate, if that were the case then I would be guilty. Stating "all the vicious hate the liberals have spewed:" is not the same as saying all liberals spew hate whenever they disagree with the war or Bush. You are twisting and universalizing my statement when I was clearly only referring to the liberals that spewed hate, not all liberals. Have you seriously not been reading the crazy stuff many liberals have been posting on the blog about how evil Bush is? Seriously??? I could copy many, including Bozo's, comments providing you with examples, but first you would need to take off your liberal-colored glasses and come to grips with reality.I cannot support or disdain claims anyone else has made that you are a "terrorist" or an "America hater" since I don't know to what they were referring to; but given my experience with you, you most likely simply twisted what they said or implied that was what they were saying.

0

screedposter 5 years, 9 months ago

"The American Revolution was fought by us in order to win our freedom from England."That's a somewhat different situation than our invading another country, don't you think?"Sorry, should have used that quote above.

0

screedposter 5 years, 9 months ago

"Our founding fathers actually believed in a "non-interventionist" foreign policy and urged us to stay clear of "entangling alliances" around the world."I forget, who was Lafayette?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_...

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Bozo:I can see you not only ignore the numerous reports out of Iraq that the situation is improving but make up facts to support your twisted view. I think our discussion on this issue should end because you ignore the truth, and even if I post the numerous articles from the media citing the improvement you will still be in denial. Even if Iraq is as bad as your made up facts claim, it is improving. This means that there is hope for the future and reason for the U.S. to stay. Simply because YOU believe it is "likely (only) a temporary lull" is not sufficient reason to immediately withdraw.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Chet_larock"even an incompetent Obama administration will leave us in a better place than the one we have now"So:you haven't learned anything from the last 8 years.

0

Clint Gentry 5 years, 9 months ago

"My mistake, I have not heard that weapon inspectors were allowed everywhere." - SatiricalAnd that's what makes a conservative...These facts were there at the time! You are now realizing what was going on? you really didn't know that there WERE weapons inspectors in Iraq? This is why we are in this mess, people like "satirical" with no idea of what's really going on! you are a shame to yourself and your ideology when well known facts pass you by. Now that you know the reality of what happened, will you change your mind? Will you recognize your failure of consciousness and wash yourself clean of the sins you've perpetrated?

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Jafs:You, like many of the liberals on this blog, like to twist my comments in a futile attempt to refute me. I did not equate the American Revolution with the Iraq war except in the aspect of fighting for freedom, which is what we are doing for the Iraqi people; freedom from Saddam, and from terrorist and extremists control of the country.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Jafs:"Satirical, you say both that you would support our staying if it gets worse, and that you would support leaving if it gets worse. Which is true?"I have never said I would support staying if it gets worse. If I did it was a typo."The ideal of removing a brutal dictator and helping a country forge a stable democracy is a good one, but seems far from the reality of what's happening."Sorry, to be the one to break it to you, but that is exactly what has, and is happening. I am sure your take on Iraq is that we are only there for the oil and the soldiers are murdering thousands of innocent and helpless Iraqis."Also, again, the war was sold as an anti-terrorist move and a pre-emptive self defense one, both of which seem to be quite false. Why aren't conservatives more upset about this?"I am upset about this, but I think it is more important to focus on what we do going forward in Iraq rather than pointing fingers with 20/20 hindsight. I think the reasons we originally went into Iraq were mainly false, and would not support a future war if based on the same arguments, unless there is better evidence of WMD's. I blame Bush, Congress, the media, and the American people for lack of oversight. Unlike you, I don't soley blame Bush, and don't believe he lied so much as promoted what he believed was best for the nation. This however does not affect the reason to stay in Iraq."And, why aren't we "getting" Bin Laden, and working on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with clear ties to terrorism?"We are searching for Bin Laden, and working on Afghanistan. We are trying to rid the world of terrorist in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but that doesn't mean the exact same steps are necessary in those countries as were in Iraq. Different facts lead to different conclusions.

0

logicsound04 5 years, 9 months ago

"all the vicious hatred the liberals have spewed the last 8 years will come back to bite them."-------------------This is what I'm talking about. Critical of the war or President Bush, then we're "spewing hate".Whatever pal.=========================================="I have never met or talked to anyone who has called someone a "terrorist" or an "America hater" simply because they are a liberal "----------------I have been called both, not specifically for being a liberal, but for having certain stances on political issues like the war on terror or the Iraq war.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

"You can't answer my question because you know I am right. You are the one ignoring the facts of progress in Iraq, not me."There are no facts of progress-- only a reduction of extreme and total violence to a likely temporary lull of merely a hellhole of violence. The economy is still non-existent, basic services the same, no healthcare, no education, poor food supplies, more than 50% unemployment, and no prospects for improvement.You can continue your denial of that situation if you want, but that don't make it so.

0

chet_larock 5 years, 9 months ago

"So you do admit Obama is incompetent to be Commander and Chief, and President of the United States."No, not necessarily. I think he's very competent - much more than Bush is or ever was - and he'll be a far, far better president. However, even an incompetent Obama administration will leave us in a better place than the one we have now.

0

jafs 5 years, 9 months ago

Satirical,The American Revolution was fought by us in order to win our freedom from England.That's a somewhat different situation than our invading another country, don't you think?Our founding fathers actually believed in a "non-interventionist" foreign policy and urged us to stay clear of "entangling alliances" around the world.I'm not sure that would work, but if you're going back to the FF as the basis of your argument, you might want to re-think that.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Bozo..."What can I say, satirical. You like war, and you'll defend it to the hilt, facts be damned. Hope you like the blood on your hands- it'll never wash off."I really thought you were above comments such as those, but it appears you are just another crazy left-wing nut. If your statements continue to conform to this insane delusion I will be forced to ingore you like I do to 'duplenty'. You can't answer my question because you know I am right. You are the one ignoring the facts of progress in Iraq, not me. I hate war, but I do know history, and lest you forget as we celebrate the 4th of July, our founding fathers understood as I have been taught, that freedom isn't free, and sometimes war is necessary.

0

jafs 5 years, 9 months ago

It's interesting that the White House gives such a positive report, when there was a recent report by a government agency that was much less positive.Satirical, you say both that you would support our staying if it gets worse, and that you would support leaving if it gets worse. Which is true?The ideal of removing a brutal dictator and helping a country forge a stable democracy is a good one, but seems far from the reality of what's happening.Also, again, the war was sold as an anti-terrorist move and a pre-emptive self defense one, both of which seem to be quite false. Why aren't conservatives more upset about this?And, why aren't we "getting" Bin Laden, and working on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with clear ties to terrorism?

0

screedposter 5 years, 9 months ago

"Sure, US withdrawal will have its own downside, but nowhere near the downside of staying."So you believe we will restore "our credibility" whatever that is, by letting Humpty Dumpty cook in the sand. Humpty Dumpty of course being human beings, in this case. Wait, maybe Humpty Dumpty will fix itself!

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

What can I say, satirical. You like war, and you'll defend it to the hilt, facts be damned.Hope you like the blood on your hands-- it'll never wash off.

0

ndmoderate 5 years, 9 months ago

I'm curious as to why it's taking so long for the Iraqi government to reap the benefits of the first phase (military) of the surge?The media certainly isn't helping the American people out on this one -- all that is talked about is the election (which of course is very important), but war coverage is abysmal. I'd rather hear about what is happening in the Iraqi government every day than about Cindy McCain's cookie recipes.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Bozo:My mistake, I have not heard that weapon inspectors were allowed everywhere. However the point is moot for two reasons (1) The violated several other U.N. resolutions http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html and (2) the U.S. does not need the authority of the U.N. to use military force.You contradict yourself by stating ":state that life in Iraq is a hellhole, and it's not improving. Violence is down somewhat:" Either violence is down or it violence levels aren't improving, can't have it both ways. You seem to be afraid to answer my question. I could cite dozens of articles from several sources indicating that Iraq has improved dramatically (of course with the caveat that it still has room for improvement) "So again, my question to you is why should we withdraw after we have made so much success militarily, and continue to make success politically?" "You want to leave immediately because you THINK the situation will get worse. I want to wait and see if things actually get worse, or if they continue to get better, since so much is at stake and we have sacrificed so much to get here."Too many liberals have the point of view that the U.S. is there because we are evil, when in fact we continue to stay there to help the Iraqis and as a result help the U.S. by having a more stable Middle East and a new democracy in the region.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

"but all the media reports indicate that Iraq has improved dramatically since the surge started."No, the media reports, if you care to read them, state that life in Iraq is a hellhole, and it's not improving. Violence is down somewhat from the near-total civil war it had been, but it's still an incredibly dangerous place, and even the "postive" reports you allude to say that the extreme violence of last year could easily return, regardless of how many troops we have there.Fixing the mess in Iraq will require the input and cooperation of its neighboring countries, including Iran, Jordan, Syria and Turkey, and BushCo has zero credibility. Unfortunately, whoever is the next president will inherit that lack of credibility.Sure, US withdrawal will have its own downside, but nowhere near the downside of staying.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

"Hans Blix was not allowed the freedom to search everywhere he wanted for WMD's"Blix disagrees with you, satirical--http://bostonreview.net/BRwebonly/blix.php"My job was mainly to make sure that our inspectors had all their rights to do what they needed to do, that they were not stopped. Remember that in the '90s, Iraq frequently stopped inspectors and we suspected that they had something to hide. But in 2002-2003, we were never stopped for any inspection, not even the so-called palaces of Saddam Hussein. I thought that in the '90s sometimes the inspectors from New York had been a bit too Rambo-like, and of course inspectors from the teams often had people from the intelligence side, both from the U.S. and the U.K. We were determined to be completely independent. And I think we were. We were in nobody's pocket.There were moments which were thrilling. At one point our inspectors found some munitions which had been for chemical weapons. There was no chemical in them, but they had not been declared. For a moment we thought maybe this is the tip of an iceberg, but gradually came to the conclusion that it was floes from an iceberg that had been there.From the beginning, like most people, our gut feelings were that there were weapons of mass destruction, although when we were asked about it we said, we are not here to tell you gut feelings, but to inspect. But as we inspected more and more cases, and did not find any weapons of mass destruction, the gut feeling changed, naturally."

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Bozo:The surge was and is successful, and there is still violence, but all the media reports indicate that Iraq has improved dramatically since the surge started. So again, my question to you is why should we withdraw after we have made so much success militarily, and continue to make success politically? If Iraq was not improving I would agree with you that we have been there long enough and it would be time to go, but those are not the facts. As long as Iraq continues to make progress then our reasons for staying remain the same. You want to leave immediately because you THINK the situation will get worse. I want to wait and see if things actually get worse, or if they continue to get better, since so much is at stake and we have sacrificed so much to get here. If Iraq reverts to where we were a year ago, with no hope for the future, then I will be in agreement with you that the U.S. should leave.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Anxiousatheist:The U.N. didn't send in military forces, because the U.N. is a worthless organization that never enforces its own mandates. Dozens of countries went into Iraq with the U.S. including the U.K. and Australia. Hans Blix was not allowed the freedom to search everywhere he wanted for WMD's and the U.N. stated several times and warned Iraq several times it was not complying with the mandate. Lastly, America does not require a U.N. mandate to engage in military operations, we are a sovereign nation, so if we believe a threat exists we have the ability to act upon that threat.Time will tell if overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a the right thing for America. If progress continues to be made and Iraq becomes a self-sustaining democracy and a U.S. ally, then I would say that the U.S. casualties, as tragic as they are were worth it; and the endless generations of free Iraqis will agree and be forever grateful. Freedom comes at a cost.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Logicsound:You disagree with the mindset buy you only disagree in writing with those you politically oppose, which means you discriminate based on political ideologies, just like they do, and makes you a hypocrite for condemning them for making the same distinction you make. Conservatives are the minority in Lawrence, so while I don't condone their actions, as a liberal in Kansas you (and many liberals on this blog especially when referring to Bush) seem to understand the need to raise your voice when you are the minority. I have noticed far more liberals on the LJWorld blog than the other way around who make ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims. You must realize that now that the Dems have control in Congress, (and unfortunately) probably have control of the White House, all the vicious hatred the liberals have spewed the last 8 years will come back to bite them. You reap what you sow. I have never met or talked to anyone who has called someone a "terrorist" or an "America hater" simply because they are a liberal (although there are some liberals, and a few conservatives for that matter, that do hate America). I think that is another liberal fiction that was probably based on a half-truth of a statement made by a single conservative, and then repeated until most liberals believed it. You have every right to defend your ideology, but remember not all conservatives are evil either.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

You're wrong, topjayhawk--http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/politics/main614998.shtml"It was the "Mission Accomplished" banner streaming atop the aircraft carrier while Mr. Bush spoke that has received the greatest criticism, making it possibly the largest public relations flub of this administration. In a rare public admission, key administration officials have questioned the move themselves. "I wish the banner was not up there," said White House top political adviser Karl Rove in April, while speaking with the editorial board of The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch. "I'll acknowledge the fact that it has become one of those convenient symbols." But for the president's spokesman at the time, Ari Fleischer, there are no regrets. "I continue to think that it was entirely appropriate," said Fleischer from his home in Washington, as he helped care for his wife, who is expecting a child within weeks. For months, the Bush administration denied that it was responsible for the banner, blaming the aircraft carrier crew itself. Since then, White House officials have acknowledged it was their idea. "We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein. "

0

TopJayhawk 5 years, 9 months ago

Satirical...Actually the term "Mission Accomplished" as was used that day on that carrier, was actually only referring that one cruise. That they successfully accomplished their goals on that cruise. Anybody who does not realize that has never been in the Navy, or refuses to hear the trutth.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

Sorry for ignoring your "argument," satirical, but it's patently absurd. If the surge were actually successful, Iraq might not be the most dangerous place in the world. But it is the most dangerous place in the world (with the possible exception of Afghanistan,) with no real prospects for that to change any time soon. Is it as dangerous as a year ago? Not quite, but the prospects for even greater carnage are much greater than anything remotely resembling the peaceful, self-sustaining democracy of your dreams.As I said before, Humpty has been obliterated, and no amount of patching together a few of the remaining shards will change that. I don't envy the next president, who will be damned if they do, and damned if they don't in cleaning up after BushCo.

0

max1 5 years, 9 months ago

July 1, 2008http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gr71LvzNq75h_QC3cpJ5_t3ycXywThe Iraqi foreign minister said on Tuesday that Washington has agreed to scrap immunity for foreign security guards in Iraq, moving the two countries closer to signing a long-term security pact."The immunity for private security guards has been removed. The US has agreed on it," Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told AFP after briefing Iraqi MPs on the controversial US-Iraq security pact which is being negotiated.The US embassy spokeswoman in Baghdad, Mirembe Nantongo, declined to comment. "We do not comment on the contents of ongoing negotiations," she said.Without immunity foreign security contractors can be prosecuted for crimes under Iraqi law.

0

Clint Gentry 5 years, 9 months ago

"Sometimes military force is necessary to secure peace" I agree with that statement, but if you actually think that's what BuschCo.'s reasoning for Iraq, you're delusional. "The U.N. agreed on numerous occasions that Saddam Hussein was not fully cooperating and thereby violating U.N. mandates"Then why didn't the U.N. send in military forces? If it was agreed by everybody that there was a threat, why where we the only significant force there? Hans Blix worked for the UN! He made sure that Iraq was complying! Iraq was complying! Bush went in anyway! You can ignore facts, forget information, spin reality, but in the end, was invading a non-threatening country really worth the ten-of-thousands of lives? Who is free now? you? How about the people with their arms blown off, do they care that the "U.N. resolution was non-binding" crap you people hide behind? You can justify all you want, but W. and his lackeys will never live down the shame that they have brought, (needlessly), into this world.

0

logicsound04 5 years, 9 months ago

"However, if they have the same mindset and support your party you have no disagreement."--------------No. As I said, I disagree with that mindset from anyone.I only make the effort to respond to those who attack my ideology and leave others to defend their own ideologies.At any rate, I see far more posters of conservative disposition (at least on these forums) that make blanket statements about liberals than the other way around.I should also add that a great deal of my motivation comes from the fact that after 9/11, political disagreement became cause to call people "terrorists" and "america haters". In case you forgot--those kind of accusations did not originate from the left.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Anxiousatheist:I never said you didn't give evidence in your comments, I said you often fail to counter many of my arguments, ex: the fact that any U.N. provisions violated by Bush is a moot point since it is not binding. The U.N. agreed on numerous occasions that Saddam Hussein was not fully cooperating and thereby violating U.N. mandates. Please check your facts.You accuse me of not reading your posts but you somehow interpret my comments as comparing the invasion of Kuwait to the American Revolution??? If you continue to twist what I write for your own maniacal purpose I will be forced to equate you with duplenty. English must be your second language because here is what I said. "Sometimes military force is necessary to secure peace and "humanitarianism", that is what you fail to understand. War is bad, but it is sometimes necessary to secure liberty (see the American Revolution)."

0

Clint Gentry 5 years, 9 months ago

Buy the way satirical, I give plenty of evidence in my arguments, see preceding post...

0

Clint Gentry 5 years, 9 months ago

'Iraq provoked the U.S. by violating U.N. agreement to allow weapon inspectors into his country" - satiricalWrong again, have you ever heard of Hans Blix? There were weapons inspectors IN IRAQ! They didn't find anything! George went in anyway! Where are your facts? Simply ignorant! Did you just compare the invasion of Kuwait to the American revolution? Wow, where are the straws? I think you need some more to grasp onto...

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

logicsound04 may often be wrong, but at least s/he knows how to make an argument and a non-fallicous counter-argument.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

I like it when people like bozo and anxious ignore most of my argument and instead make a (mistakenly) humorous or fallacious response. Maybe it is because they can't counter those arguments so they just try to change the topic.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Anxiousatheist:WWII was provoked, just like Iraq provoked the U.S. by violating U.N. agreement to allow weapon inspectors into his country, along with harboring terrorist, which after 9/11 we stated we wouldn't distinguish the countries that harbored terrorist would from the terrorist themselves. That was my point, we were provoked in both instances. We were also provoked when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, as one of our allies. We were defending a weaker nation, against a dictator and tyrant. Is there anything wrong with that? Sometimes military force is necessary to secure peace and "humanitarianism", that is what you fail to understand. War is bad, but it is sometimes necessary to secure liberty (see the American Revolution).

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Logicsound:"I was mocking Nancy_Boy's mindset-that the world is divided into clear-cut divisions of ideology and political party."Which is exactly my point, you are a hypocrite. You challenge this mindset only when it serves your ideology. When someone from your ideology has this mindset you are silent. What you should say is: you oppose people who's mindset is "that the world is divided into clear cut division of ideology and political party" only when they oppose your ideology. However, if they have the same mindset and support your party you have no disagreement. Therefore one must conclude you are motivation for distinguishing when you have a disagreement is due to your ideology and political politics. This makes you a hypocrite.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

"I get the feeling you are going to be really upset when Iraq is a self-sustaining democracy."Most likely I'll be dead by then.

0

Clint Gentry 5 years, 9 months ago

"Throughout history the Muslims always conquerd first then enlightend." - Barrypenders (accredited, published historian)So because that's what they did, that's what we have to do? We have to conquer them? I guess if that's what history says we have to do...Not much of an argument "barry", "They did it first, so we have to do the same ", the rationalization of children...

0

barrypenders 5 years, 9 months ago

Throughout history the Muslims always conquerd first then enlightend.Read your history books anxious.

0

Clint Gentry 5 years, 9 months ago

"Satirical" are you saying that our bombing in WWII was unprovoked? That's an absurd statement that may get you ignored...Oh yeah, desert storm, where we quickly signed oil contracts after running Sadam out of Kuwait, that was unprovoked. you aren't even reading whole posts anymore "satirical", your arguments are losing cogency...

0

logicsound04 5 years, 9 months ago

Feign to be a peacekeeper? Really?I don't think so. Like I said--I am taking exception to what I view as attacks on my ideology. I've never claimed to defend against such attacks for any particular reason. You are assiging the role of "peacekeeper" to me to make your point.I hardly think taking exception to someone categorizing my ideology in a patently false way means that I should have to denounce anyone who ever makes a similar comment.============================="Also, you were criticizing conservatives, not just republicans, "Conservatives vs. Liberals""------------No. my "conservatives vs. liberals" comment was not a critique of either ideology. I was mocking Nancy_Boy's mindset--that the world is divided into clear-cut divisions of ideology and political party.I personally don't think the world is a simple as conservatives vs. liberals. This can be seen in politicians like Dennis Moore or Joe Lieberman.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Anxoiusatheist:Bush did not lie. Cato and others have proven this time and time again."By the way "Barry" I've never seen a "humanitarian" mission that started with an unprovoked bombing"How about WWII, or Operation Desert Storm, etc...

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Bozo:I get the feeling you are going to be really upset when Iraq is a self-sustaining democracy. When there was evidence of the Surge working, first it was denied, then it was accepted but the libs pointed to these 18 factors that had yet to be met, now that most of them have been met you claim that it won't last. As I stated earlier, you embrace bad news and refuse to accept an AP report of progress. Of course things could start going worse, but that is reasons to stay in the country and help the people, rather than flee as you have previously suggested.

0

Clint Gentry 5 years, 9 months ago

Congress was convinced Iraq was "an acute and imminent actually threat" - SatiricalOF COURSE THEY WHERE! GEORGE BUSH USED FALSE EVIDENCE TO GET HIS WAY! HE LIED! WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!

0

Clint Gentry 5 years, 9 months ago

I love it when when republicans turn the Iraq war into a "humanitarian" mission whenever they feel like it. Ol' "barrypenders" spinning anything he can get his hands on, because if he had to admit his party has been a failure, he couldn't live with himself. By the way "Barry" I've never seen a "humanitarian" mission that started with an unprovoked bombing. Care to spin some more?...

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Repaste:You clearly didn't understand my first post. I didn't state there was any bad news on the front page of this edition. I was pointing out the liberals bias of the LJWorld, because bad news in Iraq is either on the front page or shortly thereafter, whereas progress in Iraq is either obfuscated or hidden in A7.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Logicsound:.I think it is interesting because you feign to be a peacekeeper and oppose close minded thinking, when in fact you are just engaging in a partisan tactic. You pretend to take the high ground to defend liberals and stand by as they make equally if not greater close-minded attacks. You must have taken cues from Obama who uses people like Gen. Clark to be his attack dogs, but then says he really wants to be non-partisan. Also, you were criticizing conservatives, not just republicans, "Conservatives vs. Liberals"

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Chet_larock:."It will be quite difficult for Obama to equal or surpass the incompetence of the current president/administration."So you do admit Obama is incompetent to be Commander and Chief, and President of the United States.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Anxiousathiest:.First, you forget that violation of, and enforcing UN mandates was one of the original justifications for going to war. Congress was convinced Iraq was "an acute and imminent actually threat" so did the American people, so apparently everyone is guilty of war crimes. Second, UN law is non-binding so the entire point is moot.

0

barrypenders 5 years, 9 months ago

Liberals, I guess think that the people in Iraq are incapable of governing themselves? What happend to your love for mankind? You all call americans racists if money is not spent in the deepest darkest parts of Africa. Whats wrong with showing the same compassion in Iraq? Kill the bad guys then help the sane citizens to build the kind of government that gets along with the rest of the world.Why are liberals against that?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

"It is hillarious to read all the liberals who refuse to come to grips with the reality that Iraq is improving "The country is still mostly utterly destroyed with millions of internal and external refugees, and the relative calm you all want to claim as "progress" is a result of near total ethnic cleansing, Sunni insurgents bought of (for now) with $millions of US tax dollars, and Shiite militias beholden to no one but themselves who are merely biding their time to flex their muscle. The government is totally dysfunctional, and Iraqi security forces are incapable of doing anything without major US support-- and even if they could, there really isn't anything they can do without just making things worse.Your so-called progress is merely a settling in of failed statehood-- a quagmire that is more likely to get worse than better, especially with BushCo salivating over spreading the war into Iran and likely the entire region.

0

repaste 5 years, 9 months ago

Are we not now allowing our buds, the kurds to be bombed? How did they do after the first gulf war? Think they love us?

0

repaste 5 years, 9 months ago

Satire, where is the bad news on front page? Yesterday? How many Marines died yesterday/

0

logicsound04 5 years, 9 months ago

"I think it is interesting when the libs are making vicious and ridiculous comments about republicans, you remain silent, but when someone speaks negatively of liberals, you makes statements referring to their narrow-mindedness: "Good vs. Evil, Conservatives vs. Liberals, America-lovers vs. America-haters.""-------------------Why is that interesting?I am liberal and respond to generalized attacks on what I see as my ideology.I don't condone or endorse when other liberally-minded posters make overly generalized attacks on conservatives. That is their business, and I wouldn't fault you or anyone else from correcting them.Plus, there's the fact that to me it seems far more close-minded and ignorant to demonize a philosophy (liberalism) than a political party (Republicans). You may have noticed that I am far less enthusiastic to defend Democrats from attacks, nor do I demonize true Conservatism, which has many good aspects.

0

chet_larock 5 years, 9 months ago

"If you are worried about incompetence you should be worried about our next potential President, Obama, who even Hillary knows is too inexperienced."It will be quite difficult for Obama to equal or surpass the incompetence of the current president/administration. I wouldn't hold your breath.

0

Clint Gentry 5 years, 9 months ago

You want precision? Preemptive war - "There is some question as to the legality of this doctrine under international law. Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be jus cogens, or a peremptory norm which cannot be violated. It bars the threat or use of force against any state in the absence of an acute and imminent actual threat.", And if you remember "Satirical", Bush lied, (oops i mean didn't have enough info), to justify self-defense. Now that I've provided the EXACT location of the international laws the Bush has broken, what do you say?

0

cato_the_elder 5 years, 9 months ago

Anxious, one thing for certain that President Bush could do that would make him incompetent would be for him to agree with you on any issue of substance.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Anxiousathiest..Again, rather than be grateful fewer Americans are dying and progress is being made in Iraq you just continue to spew your partisan hatred of Bush. I am not Bush's advocate, nor do I pretend to be, however the same lies are perpetually repeated until all the liberals believe them. He is not a war criminal, please state the precise ("Geneva Convention" is too broad) non-binding international law you believe he broke? Americans were largely viewed as liberators by the Majority population and the Kurds in Iraq. However, enemy combatants, terrorist, and a minority that didn't want to lose power, didn't like us interfering and are now attacking us. In every war there are thousands of missions. The phrase "Mission Accomplished" was not referring to the entire effort to rebuild Iraq, it was referring to the mission of ousting Saddam Hussein. I think Bush has done a poor job in several areas, but that does not mean he is a war criminal. If you are worried about incompetence you should be worried about our next potential President, Obama, who even Hillary knows is too inexperienced. However, I think you are so entrenched into your partisan beliefs no amount of logic or verifiable facts will awake you from your liberal-media induced coma.

0

Clint Gentry 5 years, 9 months ago

It's Hilarious to read all the conservatives who refuse to acknowledge that Bush is a war criminal that has broken numerous international laws. Bush goes to Iraq, (where we will be greeted as liberators), and 5 years later they still haven't got control of the country! Hey "Satirical"; "Mission Accomplished", "Good Job Brownie", Alberto Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, "every child left behind"...I ask this question to all you conservatives out there, "If this president hasn't exuded incompetence, at what point would you admit that one has?" I would love to know what a republican would have to do for you to consider him incompetent. I won't hold my breath...

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Bozo...Please be more specific

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

Did you click your heels three times while posting that, satirical?

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

It is hillarious to read all the liberals who refuse to come to grips with the reality that Iraq is improving and will one-day soon have a stable government. Rather than be grateful fewer Americans are dying and progress is being made they just continue to spew their partisan hatred of Bush.

0

Clint Gentry 5 years, 9 months ago

"satisfactory"? That's a teachers code word for a "C" grade card. The Bush White house gave itself a "C"? Jesus, imagine if they did anything "above average"...

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

repaste..."Irac war not front page, no dead marines in front 6 pages."What???

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Bozo's objective logic, if things in Iraq are going bad, it is absolutely true and probably worse; if things are getting better, it is completely made-up and propoganda by the President.

0

repaste 5 years, 9 months ago

Irac war not front page, no dead marines in front 6 pages.

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Logicsound04...I think it is interesting when the libs are making vicious and ridiculous comments about republicans, you remain silent, but when someone speaks negatively of liberals, you makes statements referring to their narrow-mindedness: "Good vs. Evil, Conservatives vs. Liberals, America-lovers vs. America-haters."

0

Satirical 5 years, 9 months ago

Iraq is doing better, page A7. Iraq is doing bad, front page material!

0

ndmoderate 5 years, 9 months ago

"And while Oct. 1 had been identified as an election day, Baghdad hasn't been able to agree on the rules, possibly delaying the event by several weeks."Delayed to, let's say...the first week of Nov.? Or the last week in Oct.? That would be "convenient" now, wouldn't it?

0

Pilgrim 5 years, 9 months ago

spiderman (Anonymous) says:the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are pretty much a foreign policy disaster brought to you by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rove, Rice at the direction of the puppetmasters behind this current president. all of them chickenhawks -the wars cannot be a success because they were launced to seize control of oil resources rather than to quash a terrorist network.******Take at least a full turn counterclockwise on that tinfoil hat, bud. You're gonna strip the threads.

0

spiderman 5 years, 9 months ago

the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are pretty much a foreign policy disaster brought to you by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rove, Rice at the direction of the puppetmasters behind this current president. all of them chickenhawks -the wars cannot be a success because they were launced to seize control of oil resources rather than to quash a terrorist network.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years, 9 months ago

Logic, you too are correct. I'd bet anything you and I could get along very well. I have very liberal friends...several.

0

logicsound04 5 years, 9 months ago

Don't tell that to Nancy, repaste.She is firmly entrenched in a mindset that pits Good vs. Evil, Conservatives vs. Liberals, America-lovers vs. America-haters.She has not the time to consider that the similarities between us at the grassroots level have far more in common than we have separating us.Liberals are evil. Don't you ever say otherwise.

0

Pilgrim 5 years, 9 months ago

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says:As did the vast majority of those serving in the U.S. Congress at the time.********And the majority of the most respected intelligence services around the world, including Great Britain, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Israel, France...

0

repaste 5 years, 9 months ago

Post - graduate does not = elite rich. I would venture most non-hollywood "elite rich" are conservatives. I think both parties are controlled by people outside of values held by most here. I am sometimes struck by how much the "conservative farmer" and the "dirty hippie" have in common. I would guess most folk on here have more in common with each other than any true shapers of our policy, we would think they all were nuts.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years, 9 months ago

Repaste, I'll agree with you to a point. The Democratic Party is now the party of the elite rich, and if you associate that with education, that's your folly---not mine. The Democratic Party is now the party of the rich elite. Remember that. And if Obama (and Bill and Hillary) are in the whitehouse, unlike what Obama is telling you all who are lovestruck, every extremist left lobbyist in the nation (with Al Gore at the head of the line) will be drawn to DC like flies to a fresh pile of doggie poo. You can bet on it and the rest of us----whip out the checkbook.

0

barrypenders 5 years, 9 months ago

I'm better off than I was 7 years ago. What happend to you bozo? Put all your money into Flemming Foods?

0

repaste 5 years, 9 months ago

Liberal media that kept the Dixie Chicks off the air for 2 years? There some liberal media, but at the top they are largely very conservative. Wanna gues how most people with post-graduate degrees vote? " Far left extremists" to Dem's are like Timothy McViegh to Repubs. Lets get real.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

What's truly scary is that BushCo and their sycophants actually believe their BS. They crushed Humpty with the arrogance, incompetence and outright stupidity of invading and occupying in the first place. And now they want us to believe that because they can imagine some sort of egg-like shape being formed out of the wreckage that there is actually some sort of "progress."Go away, neocons. You screwed up, now go climb into a cave somewhere and let the rest of us try to figure how to clean up your mess.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years, 9 months ago

I think what we're seeing is the corrupt liberal media, which is actively campaigning for an Obama whitehouse and is the policy and agenda arm of the Democratic Party, setting the stage in the event of an Obama win, to be able to say, "See, this young smart president successfully ended a war bungled by GWB". My other carefully prepared theory is that the situation is actually becoming so stable that the corrupt liberal media is doing enough positive reporting to just be able to keep the papers on the folks front porches---to not be seen as ridiculously far-left in other words. Keep in mind that the far-left blogosphere is like an IV for the extremist left and extremist centrists, and outlets like the NYT/LAT/CNN/MSNBC and the rest of the corrupt traditional media are trying to stay distinctly corrupt by not being terribly blatant about it's liberal bias. The traditional corrupt liberal media wants their own distinct business plan; unlike the extremists way to the left. They are trying to hide it so to speak, unlike the cesspool of the far-left blogo, which is the biggest scourge since feminism.

0

cato_the_elder 5 years, 9 months ago

As did the vast majority of those serving in the U.S. Congress at the time.

0

Frank Smith 5 years, 9 months ago

"The White House concludes?" Is this the same White House that concluded that Saddam had WMDs and had something to do with 9/11?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.