I’d initially missed this nugget in President Bush’s speech last night.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.
We will expand intelligence sharing, and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.
Patriot air defense? To defend us from whose missiles? The insurgents don’t have missiles. Al Quaeda doesn’t have missiles.
Oh. But Iran and Syria do.
Maybe we’ll need those Patriots to defend us from Iranian missiles now that we’ve just invaded sovereign Iranian territory?
The Bush administration is fucking insane.
UPDATE:
Well, at least now I know where we’re going to get all the ground troops to fight this wider, regional war.
If Bush plans to fight three countries instead of one (it sure sounded that way in his speech), my question is: With what army?
Goldy,
I suspect we’ll be out of the Iraqi mess in less than a year: GW’s own people are starting to turn on him.
There is no “winning” in the Middle East unless we are committed to killing the entire populations of several countries. We have put ourselves in the middle of a religious war that have been on-going for centuries. If we wanted to punish the Al Quaeda guys, we should have done just that with special operation attacks and other nasty devices.
I posted this on a earlier thread. But it fits here as well
Here is an alternative take on Rep Smith and those who don’t want to expand our presence in Iraq.
First, this is a very safe place for Mr. Smith to post. A litteral cheering section of far left thinkers.
He writes about the “hole” the president is in and that the president still views this as a military problem not a political one….
WEll, first off, I believe that Mr. Smith, by his words, already believes we have lost in Iraq. If he truly believes that we have lost, then he should do everything in his power to get the troops out immediately…. no half measures, if we have lost get out. If we have not lost, then we must do whatever it takes to win… To win means that we work alongside the Iraqi govt., help them stand up. Take out with extreme prejudice any insurgents or foreign fighters. Keep Iran and Syrian interloppers out of Iraq. Help keep security now, so that the Iraqi’s can take over.
There is a great distortion in the media that Iraq is falling towards civil war…Well Baghdad looks real bad. The reports from the balconies of the green zone would have us believe that the entire country is in chaos. This is not true. Baghdad is chaotic.
There are as a whole in Iraq, more public services (power, water, sewer, etc) than before we booted Saddam. We hear of lines at the gas pumps as evidence of how things are worse in Iraq than before. Well before we took out Saddam, it was difficult to get a car. There were 500K cars for a population of 24M. There has been an increase of over 100M cars since 2004, and the numbers keep rising rapidly.
Business is booming in Iraq. Oil production last month was the highest ever for Iraq. The govt is trying to work out a program for all Iraqis to share in the oil wealth of their country. The kurds are thriving.
Is there violence. yes. but to put it in context. statistically New Orleans is less safe than Iraq. New Orleans has a higher murder rate than that of Iraq. I know city vs country, but we are told IRAQ is in chaos when in truth it is Baghdad.
I believe we have already won. What we are doing now is holding onto victory. We decimated Saddam and swiftly booted him out. A massive victory. The efforts post Saddam have been trying and not perfect. 20/20 gives us that. We have not lost. Since I believe we have not lost, I think it is only responsible to give our president, his commanders and the troops whatever they need to secure victory. If that means changing the ROE’s or taking the gloves off, then do it. If it means more troops now to allow us to bring home greater numbers more quickly, then do it.
The job isn’t finished.
(cue the expletive laced tirades)
Or maybe we are deploying another carrier task force because of this threat.
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com.....ueID=29295
RightStuff
You seem fixated on characterizing our efforts in Iraq as either winning or losing. While some wars may lend themselves to an easy either/or dichotomy, surely WW2 comes to mind, others most surely do not. A complete and total surrender is not something that we could ever see in Iraq. Who would we even look to with the authority to surrender over there? Moreover, most foreign policy endeavors cannot easily be characterized as either wins or losses. I think a more helpful approach to determining what to do in Iraq now is not to analyze whether a particular action will lead to either victory or a loss, but simply try to figure out what is least likely to provoke more chaos and get our troops home safely. By the way, if Bush wanted to declare victory given Saddam’s removal and execution and that, therefore, the time is right to bring our troops home, I’d be all for it.
Right stuff…
I don’t know where to begin on commenting.
Seriously man, if you think we’ve already won, you need to be seeking counseling.
I do however agree with you assessment that all Democrats (and man Republicans as well) truly believe that we have already lost this war, not just in Iraq, but the entire war on terror.
While I cannot support pulling out of Iraq and abandoning a mess we have created is the solution nor do I support battle plans based on lies.
There’s need to be a center, somewhere between what the far left proposes and the far right spins.
New Orleans has a higher murder rate than that of Iraq. I know city vs country, but we are told IRAQ is in chaos when in truth it is Baghdad.
YOU BEEN SUCKIN’ DOWN THE FAUX NEWS.
THE OCCUPATION IS A FAILURE. NOT ENOUGH TROOPS. THE SURGE WILL FAIL LIKE ALL THE OTHER PAST “SURGES”. WE “SURGED” A LOT IN VIETNAM AS WELL. WE ALL KNOW HOW THAT ENDED UP.
AT THE END OF THE DAY BOTH SHIITE AND SUNNI WANT US OUT. THEY BOTH THINK WE ONLY CARE ABOUT THE OIL. AND THEY’RE RIGHT. WE LET THE WHOLE COUNTRY FALL APART AFTER WE CAPTURED BAGHDAD BUT WE SURE SECURED THAT OIL MINISTRY.
I suppose one way to “win” in Iraq in to drag Syria and Iran into the mix. That way Israel can nuke them and the fallout will kill all the Iraqis. As for the American soldiers in Iraq, what is a little collateral damage between friends?
How is that for convenient truth?
“How is that for convenient truth?”
It’s not, it’s an insane rambling
@3 You are wrong. We are a foreign invader, and the Iraqis will fight to kick us out of their country until we leave or forever, whichever occurs first.
@3 (continued) You rightwing dumbshits lost this war when you tortured innocent Iraqi civilians, transforming us in Iraqis’ minds from a liberator into an oppressor.
@11.
Excellent point Roger.
However, if we do pull out, she would kill off all the Iraqi’s the have allied themselves with us or do we leave that to the insurgents after we’ve gone?
Eventually you need balance reality and accountability against the fantasy of just leaving.
@11
Agreed, when we walked away from the geneva convention all bets were off.
Then again, when you fight a non-uniformed enemy, aren’t they all civilians?
This is “leadership”?????????
May 30, 2004:
MR. RUSSERT: What would you do in Iraq today right now?
REP. PELOSI: What I would do and what I think our country must do in Iraq is take an assessment of where we are. And there has to be a leveling with the American people and with the Congress of the United States as to what is really actually happening there. It’s very hard to say what you would do. We need more troops on the ground. General…Shinseki said this from the start, when you make an appraisal about whether you’re going to war; you have to know what you need.
MR. RUSSERT: So you would put more American troops on the ground?
REP. PELOSI: What I’m saying to you, that we need more troops on the ground.
January 11, 2007
“This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said after meeting with Bush. “Why are they doing this now? That question remains.”
Shit, now I’m confused. What IS your positions MIzzzzz Pelosi? Obviously, it’s about 2008 and doesn’t have a fucking thing to do with homeland security.
@13 So your point is…
We don’t have to treat civilians of countries we invade and occupy humanely? Is that really what you’re saying?
Shit, I bet the Abu Ghraib pics made you all excited.
Actually, I’m quite comfortable letting Iran have nukes. Why the fuck not? They’re not a threat to us…
16 con’t…
At least we wouldn’t have the “french problem” any more…
Dear Paul @ 9:
Apparently you are as humorless as the rest of the RightWingNuts who frequent this blog. Parody and satire and snark escape you like morals and honesty escape your politicians.
What a fucktard!
How is that for ….a convenient truth!
Huh? Who sez we don’t have sense of humor? See my post at 14.
Fucking hilarious…
@15,
Actually, That’s not what I am saying at all.
Apparently what you are saying though is that if your enemey is wearing civilian clothes even though shooting at you, you are wrong to identify that person as the enemy and should afford them all the rights and priveleges of a civilian. Quite frankly, that train of thought makes you an idiot.
My point, and I’m glad you brought up Abu Grhaib, is that the second we crossed the line of overstepping the geneva convention and sanctioned torture, secret prisons, etc… we crossed a line. Once we crossed that line, applying rules of engagment no longer applied.
Re: Iranian “consulate” raid
Aww gee, too bad… for them. The should know that diplomatic immunity cuts both ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....age_crisis
‘Bout damn time.
I wonder when we’ll see Jenna’ and Barbara’s names on that list? Nah, too much like pop. They’ll join the Guard and become flight attendants . . . oh, I forgot, the Guard is over there too. . . well, what to do, what to do…
@18
Dear My left foot.
Apparently you have studied the John Kerry book of Joke delivery.
It’s really sad when someone tries to tell a joke and does not have this basic ability. In the future I would recommned you preface your jokes with…
“I am going to tell a joke now. If I screw up the punch line, I apologize in advance”
This way, as a truly progressive individual, you will not run the risk of somehow alienating and/or causing emotinal distress.
I can’t believe I have to tell you this. I thought this was the kind of thing they teach in “intro to be a liberal”, the same day they hand out free tibet stickers for all volvo & subaru owners.
I thought they were going to give a smite button to a few posters so they could blast off Mark the developmentally disabled redneck????
Earth to stoooopid Mark, Earth to stoooopid: in 2004, Rep. Pelosi was dealing with the specific fuck-ups of the Bu$h xliii maladministration in conducting the invasion of Iraq & managing the occupation. When she quotes Gen. Shinseki it is in the context of approximately 350,000 pairs of boots on the ground to accomplish the military tasks–that’s 215,000 more GIs back in April-May of 2004.
Now, if in Jan. of 2007, either you or the Cheerleader-in-Chief take the faith-based initiative that 21,500 troops will make a difference, both of you are so helplessly insane that it’s unimaginable. Not only that, stoooopid, but with the usual FUBAR approach now copyrighted by Bu$hInc & the rethuglicans the assholes are not even going to send 21,500 more GIs into Iraq. The Texas Bush Pussy is merely going to extend the rotation in-country of 21,500 headcount of IED targets beyond their scheduled departure dates.
When Pelosi wanted more troops in Iraq 3 years ago, the discussion was to increase headcount from 135,000 to 350,000 as per Eric Shinseki. That’s over now, stoooopid. Way over. So’s the Texas Bush Pussy, way over.
The LA Times is running a story today about the part of Bush’s new plan that involves creation of secure enclaves of whatever remaining Iraqis aren’t openly hostile to us, heavily guarded by American troops. This was tried in Vietnam (they called it “secure villages” or something like that) but this time around, they’re couching the whole thing in upper-class twit rhetoric and calling them “gated communities”
I swear on my mother’s grave, I’m not making this up.
Dear Paul @ 23:
Most of the folks here get the humor. The outrageousness of the statement absolutely screamed “Hey this is not serious, it is cartoonish and poking fun at conservatives”. However, since you have so politely requested that I label my humor as such….you know what…on second though…..bite me!
If you don’t get the humor that is your problem not mine. I did not blow any punchline. But since you seem to have trouble with humor let me share a few of your favorite presidents “jokes”:
1. “Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die.” –George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2006
2. “It’s bad in Iraq. Does that help?” –George W. Bush, after being asked by a reporter whether he’s in denial about Iraq, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2006
3. “Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words.” –George W. Bush, interview with Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 1, 2006
I can’t stop laughing, how about you. Here is one more, asshole.
4. “You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” –George W. Bush, interview with CBS News’ Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006
The last one is funny, if it weren’t so true.
I hope you see the humor here, after all it is conservative humor. If not, maybe you can the folks at (un)SP to ‘splain it to ya.
Oh, in case I did not say it before. Go fuck yourself!
From MSN.com today:
President Bush’s decision to deploy 21,500 additional troops to Iraq drew fierce opposition Thursday from congressional Democrats and some Republicans — among them Sen. Chuck Hagel, who called it “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”
Chuck Hagel has integrity, a quality in short supply among Senate Republicans. So, you Bush apologists out there, unleash your vitiol on the good senator from Nebraska.
Patriot missiles? Why should those intimidate the Syrians and Iranians? They know all about them already, and more.
After the 1990 Gulf War the US gave Israel a few batteries of patriots missiles just in case Saddam had some more Scuds to lob in their direction.
Our buddies the Israelis sold one battery of patriots to the Chinese, who dismantled them and learned all about them.
They then included what they learned in an improved version of their surface to surface anti-ship Silkworm missile which they then sold to Iran, who has had them aimed at our ships in the Persian Gulf ever since.
That was a long time ago in terms of technology and I’m sure what the Chinese learned about the Patriot missiles has long since been included in a wide range of weapons systems which they have sold to many countries including Syria, and Iran.
Maybe they will do some good and maybe they won’t. Our air defence systems certainly did a lot of good around Washington and New York on 9-11-01 didn’t they?
xenophon @ 28:
My wife might ask, “Where is your offer of proof?”. I would ask you to pull your head out of your ass and tell me where this fairy tale came from.
Teresa is more polite than I am.
24 – Thank you for the clarification.
In other words, she was for it before she was against it. I understand perfectly now.
Dumfuckingass…
@5
Thank you for your considered repsonse. I appreciate that you didn’t lace your comments with obscenities or make personal attacks on me. Such are the hallmarks of many on this blog.
You are right in that I do tend to look at this in more black and white terms. You are absolutley correct in your assesment that there now isn’t a surrendering force. That force folded up and surrendered in 2003. That is why I feel we won. Everything post Saddam has been a stumbling attempt to maintain the victory. Now what does winning mean? My definition of winning is leaving Iraq to a stable democratic Iraqi govt. that is able to maintain it’s own military to defend it’s borders. Offer security, justice system and enforce the rule of law so that the citizens of Iraq can move forward with the rebirth of their nation. Many of these requirements are coming together…
What does losing mean? To me, it means leaving an infant to fend for itself among wolves. It means Iraq in chaos, Warlords fighting for control. terrorists training camps, Iran moving in to “stabilize” the situation. Massive refugee’s fleeing to the USA to escape genocide. Leaving millions without hope.
So in my view, we cannot afford to lose.
@7
The whole country is not in chaos. Baghdad is not going well, mainly becuase we turned it over to the Iraqi police and they can’t hold up against the mitia’s.
The kurds are doing quite well see
http://www.theotheriraq.com/press_michiga@5n.html
@11 what happened at abu graib(sp) was not good. I also believe the whole situation was terribly over hyped and over exagerated.
I think that there are bad elements in every part of society. Highlighting them shouldn’t taint the vast majority that are good. Just because there are a few bad cops does not mean all cops are bad.
31
If someone is truly trying to engage in a dialogue, I think personal attacks and obscenities are inappropriate. Mere disagreement certainly doesn’t justify vitriol–hell, disagreement is the spice of life. I’m not sure your goals for Iraq are any different than mine. A stable nation, residing under the rule of law, capable of resisting outside (Iranian) attempts at influence–I think all of us who think a pullout in the near future is appropriate want these things for Iraq. In some sense, we owe these things to the Iraqi people for the chaos we have unleashed. How to achieve these objectives is where we differ. I think the first rule of getting out of a hole is to quit digging. Bush’s escalation proposal seems to be in the nature of not only continued digging, but digging at a quicker pace. I cannot imagine how his proposal will help achieve the goals identified above. In my mind, the people who are saying that pulling our troops out now will lead to a stable Iraq sooner have the better argument than those who want to give our involvement more time.
@34
I think you’re right, we share many of the same goals.
Why do I support this change in strategy? First we can all agree that keeping the status quo is not viable. Second, and here is where we probably part ways, I believe that Baghdad is the “keystone” for the sectarian violence and political instability for that part of the country. Part of the reason Iraq is reported as “descending into civil war” is becuase that is the case in Baghdad, but not all of Iraq. IF we can supply enough support to the Iraqi police and army to:
1) disarm the militias
2) expel foreign fighters
3) provide security for citizens
4) Strong police presence
It gives the Iraqi govt. (city and regional and national) time to get their arms around these issues.
If Baghdad cleans up, the rest of the country can really buy into the new govt and begin to get involved in their own future.
Where we meet again is that this cannot be an open ended policy. Iraq must want this for themselves to be successful. I don’t think pulling forces out if certain time frames aren’t met is the way, but certainly conditions must be put on this strategy that bind the Iraqis to meeting goals that put them in charge at the end of the program.
@32 OH YEAH THAT’S WHY SO MANY AMERICAN SOLDIERS ARE DYING IN AL-ANBAR PROVINCE. THE KURDISH PORTION OF THE COUNTRY IS DOING FINE OK – SUCH IS THE FRUITS OF AN AMERICAN OVERFLIGHT PROGRAM SINCE AFTER GULF WAR I – A LOT CHEAPER THAN THIS UGLY, EXPENSIVE OCCUPATION.
DISARM THE MILITIAS? WHAT KIND OF DREAMLAND ARE YOU LIVING IN? ARE THE WARLORDS IN AFGHANISTAN DISARMED?
FOREIGN FIGHTERS ARE ONE PERCENT OR LESS OF ENEMY COMBATANTS.
THE POLICE ARE A JOKE – TOTALLY INFILTRATED AND COMPROMISED BY THE MILITIAS, CRIMINAL GANGS ETC. THEY ALL GOTTA GO HOME AT NIGHT AND LIVE IN THE JUNGLE.
PROVIDE SECURITY? WE CAN’T PROVIDE IT FOR THEM. 20 THOUSAND MORE TROOPS WILL END UP MAKING BAGHDAD WORSE NOT BETTER. WE’VE “SURGED” BEFORE – IT DIDN’T WORK. YOU’VE SWALLOWED THE FAUX NEWS HOOK LINE AND SINKER.
@36 actually no, I try to find information from all sources and draw my own conclusions. As I’m sure you do.
Thanks.
@36 we have indeed sent more troops, brought troops home, send more troops, brought troops home. Can we both agree that the status quo was not moving the country forward? I see this new approach as a step in the right direction.
@36 Anbar is currently “lost”. The military thinks that due to lack of troops, lack of Iraqi govt. Al Qaeda was able to move in and take over.
So what do we do? Leave it? As I posted earlier, if we need to change the ROE’s to stomp the bad guys then do it.
Send in our troops becuase they will kick ass. give them the strength of numbers, and they will defeat the enemy.
As in Baghdad, central services being turned on is key. Give the people some hope and I bet they take the ball and run with it.
Looks like the raid on the Iranian “consulate” (or whatever it was) was nicely timed right before Condi’s appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This allowed her to change the subject from how badly she’s fouled up to how those nasty “foreigners” better not interfere with our nice little colony.
What is it about the November election that Bush doesn’t get?
41
What is it about anything that Bush gets? The boy lives in some world that protects him from bad news. I wish I lived there.
Regarding: Allowing Iran to possess nuclear technolgy / weapons
If we really think that these weapons are so bad for humanity, and that others (Iran, North Korea, etc.) should not have them, then why the hell dont we get rid of our own along with everyone else on this planet who has them.
We need to set an example and be less hypocritical. The idea that somehow we are better than the rest of the world doesn’t ring true from the perspective of those who seek these weapons.
Average Joe
Here’s what we know about the 20,000 new troops Baby Bush wants. Not one of the poor mother fuckers will be a Bush relative. Because while this is the “most important conflict of our time” it’s not important enough for Bush’s combat-aged relatives and family to fight in. Can you say CHICKENHAWK?
Why, thank you very much, RightEqualsStupid. I was getting worried. I mean, the Old Man was waaaay into his cups when he put that scat together, and I thought he might actually expect me to sober up long enough to join that dreadful army you peasants were in.
MLF#29 If your wife might ask then why don’t you let her?
I would like to offer the kind of proof that would satisfy but I’m not taking homework assignments from you this week, maybe next.
I only recalled reading that account in TIME magazine after Gulf War I.
Was it a particularly nasty thing for the Israelis to do? Sure. On the other hand it was an entirely normal thing for them to do because on a certain international level there are no friends, and no enemies, but only customers. Most countries engage in trade like that, the US excells at it.
In the Carter admin we sold the Japanese super secret equipment for making efficient, and very quiet ships propellors on the solemn promise they would maintain secrecy, they agreed. We gave them the equipment and they lost no time in selling some of it to the soviets whose submarines soon began emerging from their shipyards with new efficient, and very quiet propellors. The Japanese apologized.
The international arms market is bizarre, insane, evil, and entirely Machiavellian.
46
Not taking homework assignments? Hmmmmmm. I guess what you really mean is that you have no documentation and you reinforce your baseless charge by making it again.
The charge you are making is baseless concerning the Israelis. You can’t do the homework, because the story is nothing but urban legend. Made up by your small mind.
If you make a charge here, you are going to get called on it, dumbass.
Funny how that works.
We will apparently get the people via draft, according to the democrats, since Charlie Rangel (D) has reintroduced a motion to reinstate the draft.
And those who oppose the surge should read the Iraq Study Group report again.
MLF#47 Gosh! Maybe I should hire Perry Mason! Or maybe Matlock to defend my honor!
You are welcome to accept or reject anything I say, as you will.
Have a nice Ann Coulter kind of a day.
Cheers!
Insane? Maybe, but they look more to me like drunken gamblers: “I know I lost the last (x) times I played, but it’s gonna be different this time. This time I’m gonna win it all! I can feel it!”
Yeah, let’s give Syria and Iran a pass.
Don’t be prepared for possible actions from those countries.
Be invested in failure.
NO WAIT! We need a “diplomatic” solution.
In other words more talk and no action.
Flip Flop talking point:
“That was in 2004”
Nice spin. 2 Points for the libs.
Rightwingers are not worth talking to anymore—They are traitors, murderers, and lying, America-destroying, SCUM.
They never had integrity in the 1st place—Honesty is a foreign concept to them.
They are WEAKLINGS who hate their own weakness and compensate by having others die as a cover for their own immoral values and errors.
Just like their president!
Conservatives do make good urinals, though!
(Very absorbent!)
@ 53nikto says:
Can we quote you on that?
Very eloquent.
psst. Skagit: They dont draft girls bub.
And I doubt the ERA folks want that one to be equal