Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she’s “proud” of the U.S. decision to wage the Iraq war and insisted that the world is not more dangerous than it was when George W. Bush took office.
Um, which world is she talking about?
“We’re now beginning to see that perhaps it’s not so popular to be a suicide bomber. We’re beginning to see that perhaps people are questioning whether Osama Bin Laden ought to really be the face of Islam,” Rice, 53, said in an interview to be broadcast this weekend on Bloomberg Television’s “Conversations with Judy Woodruff.”
Osama bin Laden is the Tupac of terrorists. Even though he’s supposed to be dead, he keeps releasing new tracks.
And what’s the baseline of exactly how “popular” being a suicide bomber should be? For a job where the only qualification is “blowing yourself up,” you’d think it would be really, really unpopular. You know, less popular than working at the Westlake Hot Dog On A Stick.
Also, I’d be less worried about who people think is the face of Islam- bin Laden, Cat Stevens, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar- and more concerned about who they think is the face of the anti-Muslim movement.
Which, if you asked them, would be us. Yes, the same country that defended Kosovo, saving the lives of Muslims, has been successfully rebranded as “anti-Muslim.”
Is Condi proud of that?
Bring It On – Because I Won’t Be There – GW Bush!
And Condi is out of the running for the VP slot…
Or maybe she isn’t and she just tanked what little chance the Republicans had of winning the presidency.
I’m off for a holiday bike ride. What better way to celebrate freedom than to celebrate one’s freedom from Big Oil.
What a weird thing it would be if the US became a place that the people we are “helping” did NOT hate so virulently that they want to die fighting us.
I see that chump O-blah-blah actually opened his eyes & saw the progress in Iraq.
Probably gnaws at the New Age Progressives who desperately want the US to lose the battle.
Now O-blah-blah is tap-dancing around trying to keep you chumps on the hook while, if elected, the US policy will change ZERO.
Troop drawdowns are inevitable.
You KLOWNS will jump & credit him with pre-planned drawdowns as the US & it’s brave soldiers prove you & your basic premise wrong.
Hurts don’t it??
Barck Obama said back in March 2008 that he would draw down American troops in Iraq over about sixteen months.
Barck Obama said yesterday that he would draw down American troops in Iraq over about sixteen months.
Presidnet Bush has still got more troops in Iraq right now than before the sham “surge” began.
John McCain will definitely keep us there at least until sometime after the end of his first term (he says), and frankly he will probably would never leave, given his “100 years” standard.
We will “credit” Barack Obama with getting us out of Iraq, something that no Republican would ever do, mainly because you’re all little bed-wetting children who are too afraid of the “terrorists” who are not even IN Iraq to sensibly cease our occupation.
Why does John McCain want to keep us in Iraq forever? I think it’s because he loves war. Maybe something, you know, happened to him in the prison camp. Something that four homes, $100 million and spending $750,000 per month on the credit card can’t seem to buy away. Only sending our young men out to die for a lie will ease the itch.
Will,
You are proud of concentration camps set up by the British for the genocidal killing of women and children? 25,000 Boer women and children, as well 25,000 African women and children, slaughtered in the British concentration camps.
How about this charming picture of Lizzie Van Zyl? She was a Boer girl in the Blomfontein British concentration camp:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....VanZyl.jpg
While about 50,000 women and children were slaughtered in the British concentration camps, there were only about 3,000 fatalities among the Boer men fighting against the British in that same war.
The British atrocities in the Second Boer War — while not quite as bad in relative terms as the Nazi atrocities against the Jews in the Second World War — make Robert Mugabe look like a saint by comparison. And they even make the Taliban and Al Qaeda look like saints as well.
I look down our street today, and I don’t see a single flag being flown. This is a neighborhood where ten years ago, every Independence Day and Memorial Day you’d see a flag at just about every house.
The flag we have was my father-in-law’s burial flag. (He served in the Navy in World War II.) I know that if I were to put it out at this time, Ed would have wished that it be flown upside down.
@ 7
Joke, Richard. It was a joke.
@7…RP…
But remember…those very same Boers eventually became the apartheid-crazed Afrikaners of the late 20th Century.
And nobody, but nobody can ever make Robert Mugabe look like a saint. Not today, not tomorrow, not now, not ever.
The Piper
Agreed, Piper. While this administration’s imperial adventure in Iraq has been nothing short of a total clusterfuck (though I have no problem whatsoever with the extinguishing of Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti’s family line), if there is any nation on this planet crying out for a rapid, forceful regime change, it’s Zimbabwe. Given the proper planning, a SEAL Team could do the job in a single day with enough time left over to hit the beaches in Durban for a little surfing (and some surf bunnies) by mid-afternoon. South Africa’s de facto support for this murderous regime is also unnacceptable.
@4 How’s that cheap Iraqi oil working out for ya? I see you’ve already lost a little money on your 4,000 shares of Wells Fargo stock! Cripes, I hope for your sake that isn’t your whole retirement fund and you’re diversified …
11 Unless somebody discovers a gigantic oil deposit underneath Zimbabwe, don’t expect the United States to make dealing with the situation there much of a priority.
Good point. But if there was someone who deserves to be strung up in public like a side of beef like Mussolini was in ’45, it’s Mugabe. Living proof that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Mugabe makes Dumbya look like a saint by comparison.
‘Drive by democracy one nation at a time Rice’ should run for the VP slot. It would sink the McSame candidacy faster than the Titanic. Meanwhile look for Colin Powell to come out in favor of Obama.
@13
There’s domestic oil in N. Dakota, Montana, Colorado, off the continental shelf, and Alaska. But guess which Democratically-controlled congress won’t let any of it be drilled.
I guess that means the “war for oil” is the fault of the enviro-nazis…
@14
But, but, but Jimmy Carter loves Mugabe…
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/c.....bwe/58232/
@5
Here’s Obama’s position on Iraq directly:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/io.....ation.html
@10: “But remember…those very same Boers eventually became the apartheid-crazed Afrikaners of the late 20th Century.”
Interesting…and you have a point here?
Maybe you could consult the record of your hero Ronnie Ray-Gun, who vetoed sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa.
17:
Okay, fair enough. IIRC, the Sun is a NewsCorp rag, so how trustworthy is that? Now let’s get back in the time machine to back when Ian Smith led Rhodesia while doing his best George Wallace impersonation, all with the backing of Apartheid-era South Africa. Nobody in their wildest dreams would’ve expected that Mugabe would’ve made Smith look like a saint by comparison. Oddly enough, Smith and Mugabe became friends after the transition to majority-rule, and have remained so ever since, and Smith continues to live in the Zimbabwean capitol of Harare. The general thought was that Rhodesia would be a dry run for the eventual transition in SA.
Using events of about 30 years ago to smear Democrats is just pathetic. So in response, should I blame your beloved St. Ronnie for germinating the seed of the Afghanistani mujaheddin that would eventually lead to 9/11? You know, those irregular guerilla forces we armed and trained, that were led by the certain son of a Saudi billionaire? What was his name again………?
Little Miss Russia Expert hasn’t exactly improved the lot of Russians, either. She has gone from having her name on a Chevron tanker to being their greatest benefactor ever solely by being punked by the Cheney/Feith/Addington cabal.
She’s only really gained some decision making strength after the GOP lost Congress, but ultimately will be dismissed by historians as a forgettable SoS, just another in a long line of handmaidens who enabled Little Lord Fauntleroy.
The face of Islam was never Bin Laden. It has been those portly Wahhabi princes since the beginning of OPEC, the only socialists the Bush family ever embraced, who revived the popularity of quaint old practices like misogyny and beheadings.
Of course, I’m sure there were plenty of proud middle managers throughout the decline of the Roman Empire, too. Their names escape us, too.
@20
I’m saying he was a Marxist then, we knew it, and Carter shouldn’t have kissed his ass. He’s worse now.
And Obama is going down the same naive road.
Zimbabwe used to be a next food exporter, now it’s in a politically induced famine, because Mugabe took the land away from the white farmers and gave it to his buddies.
If Carter hadn’t been such a fookin pussy, possibly the Soviets would have stayed out of Afghanistan and we wouldn’t have had to take sides with the Mujaheedin. Clinton certainly ignored anything terrorist related during his term. Unless you count small cuban boys and religious nuts.
I’m saying “learn from your mistakes” and mistakes #1 is letting weak kneed Democrats try and run a foreign policy. “But nobody else in the world will like us.” So fucking what. Nobody likes us anyway, but all of them would grab a green card and immigrate here in a New York minute if they could.
18 d
From your wingnut impersonation of Obama:
Let’s look this over:
The sham “surge” has done nothing of the sort, or at least nothing of note that can be reasonably discerned because of these simultaneous events:
– the ‘Anbar Awakening’ (during which we got the bright idea of paying Sunnis not to attack us—which worked until we stiffed them) which predated the
escalationsurge by almost a year– Moqtada al-Sadr’s JAM ceasefire, which predated the
escalationsurge– the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, which started long before the
escalationsurge and continued until mid-2007.The surge itself was cosmetic, and in fact used US troops that we needed badly in Afghanistan to resist the Taliban’s “surge” at that time.
Depending on your planet. On earth, the government of Iraq is extremely UN-stable and can barely muster a quorum, what with the Sunnis still withdrawn from theh government, al-Sadr’s supporters still withdrawn, the Kurds ignoring the central government altogether to sign oil deals independently, and the main remaining Shiite parties splitting off into anti-American-Occupation wings. And the ruling party invites Iran to help them and fetes Iranian leaders because of how “pro-American” the Iraqis are.
The tiny minority of insurgents who are affiliated with any terrorist organization have pretty much their usual tiny effect on the insurgency. The problem with this POV is that it ignores that the insurgency is a nationalist resistance to our Occupation and it will never diminish until the Occupiers leave. That’s us, buddy.
Just as it was “obviously crazy” to remove our troops from the region when it was blowing up in 2006. It’s “obviously crazy” to you to remove our troops from the region EVER, just like John McCain’s plan to keep us there occupying them militarily for 100 years or more.
But what is insane is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. That’s not our country, it belongs to Iraqis. We post soldiers on their streets, kill them at random, torture them at will, and they ALL KNOW IT. It’s no secret here. They hate us, we cannot achieve enything there militarily, we cannot sustain our deployment, and WE MUST LEAVE.
And president Obama’s taking us out.
22 del
The only “weak-kneed” ones among us are the Republicans who are too chickenshit to admit that we made a huge blunder (and the rest of the country knows it, BTW, you’re not fooling anyone) going into Iraq at all, and who are too stupid to think of any other way to combat terrorism than by sending an army into a weak oil-producing country. And now that we did THAT particular idiotic move once, we can’t even do it again because your idiot hero is to stubborn to leave even though we failed.
22 del
Don’t take us for fools. You will bitterly oppose any humanitarian intervention undertaken during a Democratic administration. Admit it.
When will these wingnuts figure out that:
A military solution is not possible in Iraq!
We’re there for the oil.
The people there know what we want and they resent it.
The war has all but bankrupted this country.
A military solution is not possible in Iraq!
We’re there for the oil.
The people there know what we want and they resent it.
The war has all but bankrupted this country
A military solution is not possible in Iraq!
We’re there for the oil.
The people there know what we want and they resent it.
The war has all but bankrupted this country.
How stupid are these wingnuts?
12. Roger Rabbit spews:
@4 How’s that cheap Iraqi oil working out for ya? I see you’ve already lost a little money on your 4,000 shares of Wells Fargo stock! Cripes, I hope for your sake that isn’t your whole retirement fund and you’re diversified.
Thanks for your concern Rog. My Wells Fargo investment is less than 2% of my liquid assets.
I’m down a whopping $700 with a $1240 dividend likely next month.
You are into the riskier stocks. It has work well for you…except for BOOM. I told you not to ride that dog from $43 down to $30 in a few weeks. Bad Rabbit.
So now we are anti-muslim.
Were we anti-muslim back in the 90s when muslims were bombing the us cole, the world trade centers part 1, american embassies, [insert long list of terrorist attacks]?
How many years have we had troops in germany? Japan? kosovo? etc.
I dare you to include the complete quote of what mccain said when he talked about the 100 years.
Oops.
Now I understand why that 100 years quote is so confusing for you. When I googled it I found this democrat commercial.
Yeah. The careful cutting and pasting sure makes it feel like mccain wants us to spend 500 billion per 5 years for 100 years. All those soldiers dying for 100 years. No end to the war. Even if all the terrorists surrender we’re into the war for 100 years. Everyone flees the country, we stay and are still at war killing. Videos of troops shooting or being shot.
the original quote
Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)
McCAIN: Make it a 100.
Q: Is that … (cut off)
McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …
Q: [tries to say something]
McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.
Wow! A big difference when you take the small quote in context.
Now you can see why the democrat sponsored ad didn’t want to use the whole quote and instead only use 4 words.