Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bush Redefines Victory In Iraq

A few days ago, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow really had to split hairs to find a difference between the administration’s cut-and-run timetable and the Democrats’ plan. While I always chuckle over Snow’s stammering when he gets tripped up in the spin, one interesting thing was lost in the whole brewhaha: President Bush redefined victory in Iraq.

According to President Bush, victory in Iraq no longer includes the establishment of a liberal democracy and the democratic institutions necessary to sustain it, victory no longer includes a free market economy (the Iraqi government centrally controls the oil industry, the country's only significant economic engine), and victory no longer includes reconstructing Iraq's infrastructure.

President Bush's new definition of victory in Iraq is, "a free government that is able to sustain itself."

So it doesn't matter anymore that Iraq's constitution is predicated on repressive Sharia Law, or that the government is dominated by the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and Muqtada al-Sadr, or that Baghdad still only gets a few hours of electricity every day. As soon as the Iraqi government can withstand an assault by a few hundred Sunni insurgents, President Bush can declare "Mission accomplished!" Again.

Luckily, President Bush's refactored victory condition accurately reflects the situation on the ground (who says Bush lives in a bubble?). The Shiite-dominated government of Shiite-dominated Iraq -- backed by Iran -- will not fall to a handful of Sunni insurgents. Under the new rules of the game, we've already won. So President Bush, General Casey and Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki are working on timetables for withdrawal -- just like Democrats said they should do.

(As an interesting footnote, General Casey is reportedly resisting the withdrawal despite President Bush's insistence that it's Casey's idea.)

Posted by American Pundit at June 30, 2006 4:04 AM
Comments
Comment #163500

Ironic, ain’t it?

Posted by: gergle at June 30, 2006 4:35 AM
Comment #163507

Hi, Liked your blog and enjoyed your comments. Since you a regular writer and commentator on Politics, I’d like to invite you to post your views and ratings on politics on ResponsePlanet.com. I believe your views will be much appreciated on ResponsePlanet.com; moreover, I’m sure you’d welcome the opportunity to promote your own blog and attract some traffic.

Posted by: Kevin Collier at June 30, 2006 5:00 AM
Comment #163523

Bush changed the reasons for war, why shouldn’t he change the reasons for victory?

Military men who proposed this idea were ignored, DEMs were called cut and run, but when REPs throw the EXACT same idea around, it’s called victory. Kind of like a smarmy boss who keeps tossing out your ideas as his own… obnoxious as first, but the it gets down right pathetic after a while.

Think about the rationale for Iraq. The horrific attacks of 9/11 leave us no options against the terrorists than to go free the people of Iraq. (Now, can someone please tell me specifically how this fits within the confines of Congress’s permission of the use of military to fight terrorism?)

kctim - I know I’m a bush-hater for saying this, but that’s just something I’ll have to live with.

Posted by: tony at June 30, 2006 6:59 AM
Comment #163525

Who wil stop the Rove, Bush, Cheney axis of evil, “words of war” on the American Democratic Party?, The Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity axis of lies, hate and spin? The FOX hunt for hate and vengence perpetuated by O’Riley, Hume and Friends is not just the leftover venom for Bill Clinton, it’s deadly. The Republican Party, Conservatives, and the questionable Moral Majority of the Reich Wing has to be stopped, they are not attempting to spread democracy, the greatest military in the world accomplished their dirty deed of toppling Saddam three years ago, and good, brave young soldiers continue losing their lives to help the Iraqi people, who need humanitarian aid, not U.S. troops, to help them rebuild their country, along with their elected government. How many new reasons for the Iraq War can George W. Bush and team invent? The Supreme Court gave Bush the power he has, how many times does he need to be rebuked before congress will act on the behalf of the American taxpayers who have given them all their power and their pay raises. We have a justified war in Afghanistan to finish, stop the Taliban Militia from recruiting, and get terrorist number one and two, bin Osama Laden and Mohamed Atta.

Posted by: Nedrea Richards at June 30, 2006 7:16 AM
Comment #163524

Who wil stop the Rove, Bush, Cheney axis of evil, “words of war” on the American Democratic Party?, The Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity axis of lies, hate and spin? The FOX hunt for hate and vengence perpetuated by O’Riley, Hume and Friends is not just the leftover venom for Bill Clinton, it’s deadly. The Republican Party, Conservatives, and the questionable Moral Majority of the Reich Wing has to be stopped, they are not attempting to spread democracy, the greatest military in the world accomplished their dirty deed of toppling Saddam three years ago, and good, brave young soldiers continue losing their lives to help the Iraqi people, who need humanitarian aid, not U.S. troops, to help them rebuild their country, along with their elected government. How many new reasons for the Iraq War can George W. Bush and team invent? The Supreme Court gave Bush the power he has, how many times does he need to be rebuked before congress will act on the behalf of the American taxpayers who have given them all their power and their pay raises. We have a justified war in Afghanistan to finish, stop the Taliban Militia from recruiting, and get terrorist number one and two, bin Osama Laden and Mohamed Atta.

Posted by: Nedrea Richards at June 30, 2006 7:16 AM
Comment #163526

Nedrea

You want hate filth and slander spend a couple of minutes listing to air america. The likes of jerry springer.

Posted by: Thomas at June 30, 2006 7:51 AM
Comment #163531

AP,

You have spun your links up just a bit, but I really liked the phrase in the Post that said…

Debate over Iraq will dominate the Senate this week, with Democrats scrambling to find a Goldilocks solution.

That pretty well sums it up…

Posted by: Cliff at June 30, 2006 8:43 AM
Comment #163537

That’s just too funny. Tony mangles his speech just like George does. I’m serious, it’s almost like Tony has a headphone and Bush is telling him what to say.

Posted by: DOC at June 30, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #163538

“kctim - I know I’m a bush-hater for saying this, but that’s just something I’ll have to live with.”

Look at how you worded your post Tony. You make valid statements that anyone with an open mind should also have questions about and you ask a very interesting question.
All without saying Bush is an evil Nazi Christian NeoCon Republican bent on taking away our rights and ruling over the world.

Interesting how sensible statements and questions garner respect and thought, while illogical conspiracy statements like Nedrea’s do nothing but show the partisan hatred of the far left isn’t it.

Posted by: kctim at June 30, 2006 9:50 AM
Comment #163545

AP,

Do you work in software? “Refactored” is a relatively new piece of jargon in software development.

Just curious.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 30, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #163548

American Pundit Do you Honestly beleive this shell game you are presenting here?It is disgracefull for the Dems. to try and take credit for George Bushes Winning in Iraq.The Dems. deserve NO credit on this war on Terrorism As they have fought The American people all the way.Good try Anti American Pundit.

Posted by: justwondering at June 30, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #163558


and if you don’t like him, well you just don’t understand.

Posted by: jlw at June 30, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #163563

It’s easy to win a game if you have the ability to change the rules, and even easier with the power to change the objective.

Posted by: DOC at June 30, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #163572

Cool! Victory is at hand. Let me just see if I understand.

A few years ago President Bush approached Congress and the American People and told them we can remove a dictator from a third world country that poses no immediate or near term threat to our security and replace him with a government that more closely resembles the one in Iran. We can do this at the cost of about a trillion taxpayer dollars. Approximately 5000 American parents will forever lose their sons and daughters and tens of thousands of other Americans will no longer be able to function in society due to physical and mental disabilities. At least 50,000 innocent civilians in Iraq will be killed another 100,000 or more maimed and/or left homeless. But this is a victory we can achieve.

Oh boy. Way to go.

Posted by: Stan at June 30, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #163573

Anyone know what “Kobiashi Maroo” is or means?

I think that is what we have here.

Posted by: nick at June 30, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #163574

Stan,

I thought the overall statistics for WWII were much higher?

Posted by: discerner at June 30, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #163575

This is COOL! A political blog that is really just a cheerleading section for liberal agendas! At least the libs take pot-shots in the conservative blogs.

This blog is like fishing in a barrel. But that’s probably because whenever a conservative view is provided, the “kind and gentle” progressives attack that view like a rottweiler on a piece of raw chicken.

Here’s a little fodder for you:

Democrats made a position statement (albeit a weak and nebulous one) that the US should leave Iraq. Great idea. Eventually it will come to pass, and the idea becomes reality. And thus we have the difference between a liberal and a conservative. The liberal makes statements about what they wish would happen. Conservatives, on the other hand, have to live in the real world (in particular because they are saddled with the responsibility of making policy and enforcing the law of the land). The conservative has to make decisions based on real-world situations. OF COURSE we ALL want to leave Iraq as soon as possible. But the conservatives can’t make stupid statements like the liberals can! It would be taken seriously!

So in the end, eventually the libs get it right. But for the conservatives, they have to get it right ALL the time, thus their leadership position in politics as well as business.

Posted by: Bruce P at June 30, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #163576

“I thought the overall statistics for WWII were much higher?”

Wow,, there’s a point that has real meaning.

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #163582

Bruce - Republicans needn’t feel stress at having to be taken seriously, an ever increasing number of people are realizing that they can’t.

Posted by: DOC at June 30, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #163588

Gee, Bruce

“But for the conservatives, they have to get it right ALL the time, thus their leadership position in politics as well as business.”

That wouldn’t be because conservetives own the keys to the car, and not only won’t let anybody else drive, but don’t ever want to give them up ever again.

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0800.htm

“Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.”
Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee

You guys knew the job was dangerous when you took it, and you can’t bitch now when things get rough.
The “you’re with us or against us” additude isn’t becoming when you’re trying to serve all of the people all of the time.

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #163591

It’s hard to be effective when everyone is trying to take you down. Today’s democratic party leadership has show that they are more interested in toppling the republicans then they are in doing what is best for the nation.

If you can’t see the damage being done by the MSM to this nation’s efforts to combat worldwide terrorism you are only reading blogs.

Gotta go save the world now… Ciao

Posted by: Bruce P at June 30, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #163592

Bruce P,

Since you like to live in the world of reality, how’s this for reality?

“Five U.S. Army soldiers are being investigated for allegedly raping a young woman, then killing her and three members of her family in Iraq”
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2139146&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

The reality of history dictates that we will be remembered much longer for attrocities like this than we will be for our good acts and good intentions. Can you imagine the impact something like this has? Beyond the sectarian strife, a great deal of the insurgency exists only because of our presence in Iraq. This was the recruiting tool from hell.

Of course we know that such acts are to be expected in a “long” war. War brings out the base instincts of survival. The bottom line is we’ve really “screwed the pooch” by following George Bush’s flawed policies and thinking. So, what’s next? Time to break out that “Mission Accomplished” banner again?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #163593

With all due respect Rocky and Doc This might come as a shock to you two but America does not want or need your help in the Battles that we are fighting.There are enough true Americans to win this war and what ever war comes next.The left has always been an after thought when it comes to protecting the U.S.A.Those who say America can not win are just in the way.Winners know they will win loser’s just don’t want to win.Be assured of one thing Doc and Rocky We the People Of the United States Of America will still protect You two and your familys regaurdless of your losing Life styles.

Posted by: justwondering at June 30, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #163595

Great quote Rocky.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #163596

Bruce,

“It’s hard to be effective when everyone is trying to take you down. Today’s democratic party leadership has show that they are more interested in toppling the republicans then they are in doing what is best for the nation.”

How is this different than “yesterday’s Republican party leadership?

The party in power is always the one that will take it in the shorts, be the Dems or the Reps.
That is the one constant in American politics.

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #163597

Bruce:

“The conservative has to make decisions based on real-world situations.”

You seem to feel that you guys have a monopoly on running businesses. But some of us liberals have been in business too. Generally, when we make business decisions we like to do market analysis, assess risks, perform various analyses such as return on investment, etc. At the time Bush was rushing us to war, there were inspectors on the ground telling us that there were no signs of WMDs. Experts were telling us there was no tie between Hussein and Al Queda. Our generals were telling us we needed an exit strategy before going in. It seems we committed to the war based only on Bush’s hunches.

“But for the conservatives, they have to get it right ALL the time, thus their leadership position in politics as well as business.”

I never took Hunches 101 when I went to business school. Guess that’s because I didn’t go to one of the upper crust schools. Which is why I don’t feel the need to get it right ALL the time.

Posted by: Stan at June 30, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #163598
Conservatives, on the other hand, have to live in the real world (in particular because they are saddled with the responsibility of making policy and enforcing the law of the land).

If you can’t see the damage being done by the MSM to this nation’s efforts to combat worldwide terrorism you are only reading blogs.


No Bruce, In the real world responsibility includes taking responsibility for consequences. Not blaming the media for everything and anything.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 30, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #163599

justwondering,

“Be assured of one thing Doc and Rocky We the People Of the United States Of America will still protect You two and your familys regaurdless of your losing Life styles.”


Frankly, I neither need, nor do I desire your type of protecting, and I will thank you to keep your value judgements to yourself.

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #163600

Tell you what, Justwondering, when this is all over and there is peace and democracy in Iraq, I can’t speak for Rocky, but I will certainly listen to your interpretation of how it was entirely orchestrated by Republicans.

I might even promise not to laugh.

Posted by: DOC at June 30, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #163601

justwondering,

Hmmm, I’d swear when they had the draft “lottery” in the late 60’s/early 70’s that party affiliation was not a factor.

Jeeze, just think how many trips to Canada could’ve been avoided by a guy just raising his hand and saying, “I’m a Democrat”!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #163606

Funny thing is, they think that the loyalty they have now will be reciprocated when their party finally comes to absolute power. Imagine the hurt and surprised looks on their faces when they are treated no differently than anyone else.

Posted by: DOC at June 30, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #163608

Doc you won’t have to listen to me the liberal media by that time will be the first to print that the leadership of the Democrat party and the very few followers of that party prolonged the war in Iraq and put up a better fight against the American people than Usama Bin-laden himself.

Posted by: justwondering at June 30, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #163609

AP

Good to hear from you again.

Now lets get to actual fact. The government is a democratic government. I am sorry you do not like the parties that came into power (nor do I). They were voted on by the People of Iraq. You may be right about Irans back room control but at this point there is no credible evidence so making such a statement should reflect that there is no credible evidence. I do think we need to keep a strong watch on this.

Bush also said we would not leave until Iraq could secure itself. It is getting closer to that all the time. The Iraqi army are handling more and more raids by themselves. This is a good move and one Bush said was needed before total victory.

If you were paying more attention you would find that the Iraqi infrastructer has had vast improvements. In fact there are villiages that now have water and electricty that have never had it before. Schools and hospitals have been rebuilt as well as roads. We helped the country to rebuild the oil fields so that they can create income for themselves. This income will benefit the whole nation. While Sadaam did not share the wealth for the benefit of the people (as it should be) this country is set up to do that. Only time will tell if they actually do.

You are somewhat correct in saying the oil industry is the countries only significant economic engine. The statement is misleading they will develop others but that takes time in the form of years. They basically have no other national resources so they are going to have to develop industry. We have been helping with that but you can only do so much while there are terrorist out there still killing.

I think the government is doing a good job on trying to bring those people back into the fold. Remember in our own revolution we had many problems still years later with those who were still unhappy about all the changes.

I read his statements in the splitting hair piece and I just dont see it. He keeps his statements the same and leaves it at the foot of the general who is going to make the final decision.

They have to have many different plans as to how things may play out. The problem with putting a date on it and making it public is then everyone would know. If the enemy knows when someone is leaving they will wait until we leave then they will continue their terror. Plus putting a date on it would be the wrong approach. Goal oriented is the way to go. Accomplish your goals then leave. We are almost there.

You last statement “just like democrats said we should do” is rather disengenuous of you. You do realize that every since this began Bush has been clear as to when we will pull out. We will pull out when the generals say we should. They will say that when they think the Iraqi army and police are able to handle things. I am glad that the Democrats finally agree with Bush.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 30, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #163610

So,declare victory and get out. That is a one word difference between Democratic plan and Bushco’s. For every extra second we stay there for domestic political reasons,exposeing our troops to harm, I hope some Republican chicken hawk spends an eternity in hell. Present company included.

Posted by: BillS at June 30, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #163613

I was asked an interesting hypothetical
question over the noon hour.

If the libs sole purpose was to subvert the US in any way to regain control of the US.

What actions would they take?
What would they say?
What would they be thinking?

Posted by: David W at June 30, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #163619

Nick,
Anyone know what “Kobiashi Maroo” is or means?

Yup, sure do. But in that case the rule changes were not made by the ones who wrote the original rules. And J.T.K. was a good guy.

Posted by: dana at June 30, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #163620

David W - Oooh! Oooh! Pick me! I know this one.

>>>If the libs sole purpose was to subvert the US in any way to regain control of the US.

>>>What actions would they take?
None.
>>>What would they say?
Nothing.
>>>What would they be thinking?
Soon it will all be clear and the Republicans will finally make the fatal mistake that loses their base forever.

Posted by: DOC at June 30, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #163623

Bill S

I hope some Republican chicken hawk spends an eternity in hell. Present company included.

I am sorry you feel that way. Your name calling and personal attacks do not help your argument.

Please repost with something to say about the topic or what someone else said then we can have discussion or commentary. Name calling is not permitted.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 30, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #163625

Don’t worry, before long “victory” will mean that a government that can stay within the Green Zone without being annihilated for at least six months after we leave.

Posted by: gergle at June 30, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #163627

gergle - Exactly. May I hear a resounding
“Mission Accomplished”?

(crickets chirping)

Posted by: DOC at June 30, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #163631

If Bush and co think they have achieved something although a considerably lesser something, as American Pundit has pointed out, isn’t the huge cost disproportionate to the gain, even in their calculations? And aren’t the tragedy in Iraq and the opressive steps being taken in this country being justified by an old and strangely applied concept?
Help me here. It seems to me that the ends justifies the means had something to do with the Communist party.
As a liberal, I cannot accept that concept. Evil means corrupts any ends.

Posted by: dana at June 30, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #163633

DOC

wishful thinking…

Posted by: David W at June 30, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #163637

AP:
“the Democrats’ plan.”

I liked Kerry/Feingold’s resolution. It had the kind of guts that the Dems need to show the American people in general, and reflected the true sentiments of the majority of Democratic voters in particular. Too bad only 13 Dems had the spine to vote for it. The majority went instead with the wishy-washy open-ended, non-binding, no clue, Levin/Reed resolution.

“While I always chuckle over Snow’s stammering when he gets tripped up in the spin,”

Me too. He’s turning out to be almost as hilarious as Lil’ Scotty! I loved it the other day when he called Helen Thomas’ persistent demand for an honest answer outside his spin zone “heckling”.

“President Bush redefined victory in Iraq.”

Yes, this administration “cuts and runs” from a great deal, because all they are made of is politcal expediency.

“President Bush’s new definition of victory in Iraq is, “a free government that is able to sustain itself.”

Which doesn’t seem at all likely. They’ll begin pulling some troops out now before November, thereby getting to claim it’s a draw down due to some kind of real progress, meanwhile, those permanent bases should be informing the American people of something very different, indeed.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 30, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #163647

“Anyone know what “Kobiashi Maroo” is or means?”

Too bad bush is no Capt. Kirk.

Posted by: Observer at June 30, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #163653

“They’ll begin pulling some troops out now before November, thereby getting to claim it’s a draw down due to some kind of real progress, meanwhile, those permanent bases should be informing the American people of something very different, indeed.”

My prediction is that they’ll patch together enough security to claim victory, pull out most troops but insist that they need a “peacekeeping force” to reside in those bases, withing a year civil war or a military coup will happen replacing their quiltlike government with something similar to Sadam, the republicans will claim it’s not their fault as they left everything hunky dory, and the american public will forget all about who’s really responsible.
By that time, bush will be a highly paid figurehead at either an oil company or Halliburton or some arms dealing company just like daddy.
So much for my prognostication outburst.

Posted by: Observer at June 30, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #163656

“Don’t worry, before long “victory” will mean that a government that can stay within the Green Zone without being annihilated for at least six months after we leave.”

gergle,

Simplicity is beautiful and that statement was beautiful but probably very accurate. At the end of the day “an independent democratic Iraq” still becomes a big wet kiss for Iran somewhere down the road. Well, unless we plan on permanent bases in Iraq.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #163659

AP:

What you say is true. Except for one thing: Republicans do not want to ever leave Iraq. They are building permanent bases there from which they will “introduce democracy” to the rest of the Arab world.

They will bring some troops home in time to affect the fall elections. But that’s it. Remember this is a “long war.”

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 30, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #163661

Paul spoken like a true American Conservitive!!Very Good.

Posted by: justwondering at June 30, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #163663

Observer,

I think you’re really close in your last observation with one exception. At some point very soon there will be some involvement between the Saudi government and the “new” Iraqi government.

One thing is sure. As long as we need oil from the Middle-East we’re supplying the needs of those who wish us harm and as long as we’re involved there militarily we’re feeding the same extremism that we profess to be fighting.

While the history of the right-wing loves to condemn Jimmy Carter I really wonder where we’d be today if we’d followed his principles of conservation and personal responsibility.

“War, what is it good for! Absolutely nothin’!”

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #163664

Here is the Democrats Plan for Iraq.

1. March 2003, Democrats: we should not have invaded Iraq get our troops out now.
2. April 1, 2003: Pfc. Jessica Lynch recovered by U.S. forces, Democrats sat good get our troops out now.
3. April 9, 2003: Saddam Statue Toppled, Democrats say good lets get our troops out now.
4. July 22, 2003: Saddam’s sons, Uday and Qusay are killed, good lets get our troops out now.
5. January 17, 2004: 500 U.S. soldiers dead in Iraq since the invasion, lets get our troops out now.
6. April 28, 2004: Nude Images of prisoner at Abu Ghraib, good reason to get our troops out now.
7. September 7, 2004: 1000 U.S. soldiers dead in Iraq since the invasion, lets get our troops out now.
8. November 2, 2004 Bush wins re-election, Democrats say shit lets get our troops out and cut and run now.
9. January 30, 2005: Iraqis vote to form a Transitional National Assembly, good reason to get our troops out now.
10. October 15, 2005: Iraqis vote to ratify draft constitution, good lets get our troops out now.
11. October 26, 2005: American military death toll reaches 2,000, Democrats say lets get our troops out and cut and run now.
12. November 18, 2005: Rep. John Murtha has the balls to reveals true Democratic Plan and calls for a cut and run policy to withdraw U.S. Troop out of Iraq now.
13. December 15, 2005: Iraqis vote to elect members of the Iraqi Assembly, good reason to get our troops out now.
14. April 21, 2006: Jawad al-Maliki is chosen as the Iraqi Prime Minister, good reason to get our troops out now.
15. June 8, 2006: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is killed, good lets cut and run out now.
16. A press leak is revealed that General Casey has given President Bush a timeline to withdraw Troops, and the Democrats claim the Bush has stolen there plan for troop withdraw. Democrats whine and complain that it is not fair to say our plan is a cut and run plan when Bush’s plan is not.

Posted by: Mr. Right at June 30, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #163667

‘…exposeing our troops to harm, …’
Posted by: BillS at June 30, 2006 01:43 PM

Does anyone else see something wrong with this statement?? Other than the spelling that is??

Posted by: bug at June 30, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #163671

Paul,

One thing puzzles me. I totally agree with you, but at some point we’re going to have to reinstate the draft if we continue down this road. I almost wonder if that’s why the administration is “sitting on their hands” regarding North Korea and Iran.

Are Bush & Co. just waiting for something truly egregious to happen where the administration can relegate the need for a draft to something other than their own malfeasance. Or maybe they’re just stupid.

I’d just like some intelligent comment on the subject of troop levels and the possible “near future” need for a draft.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #163672

At least two democratic positions right now are:

Paul Siegel:

Republicans do not want to ever leave Iraq.

Implication: Bush is bad because he wants to have a war forever because of his dream to force democracy on the middle east.

Number two:

Bush has secretly decided to remove US troops from Iraq.

Implication: Bush is wrong for calling Democrats cut and run, when he wants to leave Iraq as well.

Craig’s conclusion:

The democratic position on Iraq is simply “Bush is wrong”.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 30, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #163674

Mr. Right,

I’ve already fulfilled my “troll feeding quota” for the next few weeks. You’ll just have to wait for someone else to laugh at your foolishness.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #163683

Mr. Right, as I see it, here was the Republican Iraq Plan:

Lie to go into the war.
Go in without enough troops who aren’t properly equipped and no exit strategy.
Destroy the country completely.
Claim that by staying the course we will win.
Watch while our troops die and are maimed while the justifications for the war keep changing.
Claim that by staying the course we will win.
Kill a huge number of Iraqi civilians and watch as an enormous insurgency grows.
Claim that by staying the course we will win.
Hold elections under heavy security and claim it as a victory of democracy, even though the people vote for a theocratic government under Sharia law.
Claim that by staying the course we will win.
Disgrace ourselves by torturing them, using white phosphorus on them and watch while our troops on their umpteenth tour of duty begin loosing their minds and start to commit atrocities on innocent people here and there.
Claim that by staying the course we will win.
Go into an insane level of debt, spending billions of tax dollars and allow much of it to simply go missing, or be stolen through various forms of corruption.
Claim that by staying the course we will win.
Watch while sectarian strife and civil war begins.
Claim that by staying the course we will win.
Latest development: Pull out some troops to appease American voters in November, while trying to get them to ignore the fact that we’ve built permanent bases for permanent occupation in Iraq, and for launching future wars in the Middle East.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 30, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #163684

Anyone that claims President Bush has redefined what he considers victory in Iraq is just making up crap to use as a political argument. Most liberal democrats and people on the left love to mince words and look for any verbal nuance and if they find something they can grab hold of they say the President is a liar. Get real people it is not lying if you reevaluate condition on the ground and changes strategy and policy to reflect new conditions, it is not lying if the president gathers information from multiple intelligent sources and base his decision on that information, even it that information turns out to be false after the fact. For anything to be a lie the person must say something that he knows to be false before he says it and Bush has never lied.

Hear is Presidents Bush’s plan for victory in Iraq today and before the war started it has not changed.

1. Remove Saddam from power.
2. Get the Iraqi people to elect there own government.
3. Get the Iraqi people to vote on an Iraqi constitution.
4. Train the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army well enough to sustain its self and take over security of Iraq without the help of the coalition forces.
5. Start withdrawing the U.S. coalition partners first then withdraws U.S. forces.

You can see that the 5 step plan is on track, Saddam is out of power, Iraqi people voted for a new government and new constitution, 300 thousand Iraqi police and Army has been trained and after Bush has talked to Italy and Japan to of the coalition partners about removing there troops. It your plan is working to the point where you have accomplished 4 of the 5 items on your plan and even started on item number 5 than you stay the course. Why in the hell would anyone want to not stay the course? Answer is because political opponents either wants to propose there on dumb plan just to claim the victory in Iraq as there idea or they can not stand the truth that Bush was successful in Iraq.

If people can not the see the difference between the Administration timetable and the Democrats cut-and-run plan they are fools or blind. The President is the Commander-in-Chief and he alone makes all military decision and plans period. When the President starts implementing troop withdraw he is implementing his plan. There are many that has there own ideas about troop withdraw, the Democrats has there ideal for troop withdraw the Republicans has there ideal for troop withdraw the Generals has there ideal for troop withdraw, the UN has there ideal for troop withdraw, and even the terrorist insurgents has there ideal for U.S. Troops to withdraw. But that is exactly what they are just ideas. None of those other ideas (plans) have authority or power to implement them only the President of the United States has such power.

I say stay the course President Bush, your plan is working. It is working so good that everyone wants to claim it was there plan and take credit for it.

Democrats are not intellectually honest to call for troop withdraw in Iraq every step of the way and when Bush finally does call for troop withdraw claim he is using there plan.

Analogy: A Market analyst could claim for years we are going to have a stock market crash anytime soon and continually make that claim and three years later when there is a down turn in the stock market, claim he predicted a market crash and that is why you should use him as an analyst. That Analogy is the Democratic plan for withdrawing Troops in Iraq.

Posted by: Mr. Right at June 30, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #163687

Mr Right,

When you see the term “troll” this is to be defined as Republican or Conservative or maybe just not Liberal or not democrat.

When you see a list that begins with the word “lie” or “torture”, you can pretty much ignore it. Its the Kool Aid talking.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at June 30, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #163689

“When you see the term “troll” this is to be defined as Republican or Conservative or maybe just not Liberal or not democrat.”

Or not supported by facts.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #163693

Kansas Dem:
“I’ve already fulfilled my “troll feeding quota” for the next few weeks. You’ll just have to wait for someone else to laugh at your foolishness.”

:^/ Yeah, I shouldn’t have put up that last post of mine — should have ignored it instead. Anyway, this will be my last post for a week. One of my sisters is coming for a visit this Sunday, and I won’t be reading or commenting while she is here.
So, until we meet again my liberal friends and rightie opponents, happy posting!

Sincerely,
Adrienne

Posted by: Adrienne at June 30, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #163695

Bug,
You are so right. I have been calling for withdrawal everystep of the way.

And I am right.

Not sure? Here is an easy way to prove it. Take each date on the timeline, and type out the name of the young men and women who died by that date. No dehumanizing this by just citing numbers! Please type their names.

Next, type the number of wounded by each date mentioned. You will never find their names, Bug, because we do not talk about them.

Then, type out the amount of money spent by that date.

Oh, you are not finished yet, not by a long shot. Go ahead and type in the number of Iraqis dead by each date mentioned.

Tut, tut. You might have forgotten all the Iraqi soldiers killed in the initial invasion. We never not mention them either. Go ahead and use 25,000 as a very, very conservative number of human beings killed.

We went in because the Bush administration lied. We went in for oil. We timed it to influence the 2002 election. And ever since, the Unitary Executive has used various pretexts to expand the power of the Executive Branch at the expense of others.

Get typing, Bug! You too, Mr Right! After you finish, let everyone know if you still think war is so great.

Posted by: phx8 at June 30, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #163697

Mr Wrong,

You’re making it up as you go along just like Bush & Co.

“1. Remove Saddam from power.”
FACT: The administration stated that Iraq was an “imminent” threat!

“2. Get the Iraqi people to elect there own government.”
FACT: There was “no plan” and there is still no real “plan”

“3. Get the Iraqi people to vote on an Iraqi constitution.”
FACT: Most Iraqi’s recognized that as an end to American occupation. Most now apply their own religion above any “Americanized” constitution.
(Just imagine if our constitution had been drafted while we were under British or French occupation)

“4. Train the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army well enough to sustain its self and take over security of Iraq without the help of the coalition forces.”
FACT: setting a timetable forces them to be responsible for themselves. (at this time we have a timetable for American welfare recipients of 5 years. Why shouldn’t we have a timetable for an “oil rich” country before we cut off aid?)

“5. Start withdrawing the U.S. coalition partners first then withdraws U.S. forces.”
FACT: It’s already happening!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #163699

Kansas Dem:

“Are Bush & Co. just waiting for something truly egregious to happen where the administration can relegate the need for a draft to something other than their own malfeasance.”

I heard someone speaking on a radio show recently and he made what I consider a brilliant point. It is precisely because we have an all volunteer army that people are not shouting in the streets about our involvement in Iraq as they did in Vietnam. If there was a draft in place, we would no longer be in Iraq—and may not have ever gone there in the first place.

Side note: thanks for your kind comments on my wrecking ball analogy in another stream.

Posted by: Stan at June 30, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #163700

Adrienne:

Thanks for the heads-up on your absence. I wonder sometimes when colleagues disappear—I always wonder if they’ve gotten fed up and decided to write that book they’ve threatened to write all those years.:-)

You will be missed.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 30, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #163706

“Go in without enough troops who aren’t properly equipped and no exit strategy.
Destroy the country completely”

You forgot a couple:
Rush to secure oil feilds while ignoring huge ammo dumps, which are now the source of the IED’s killing our boys.
Disband Iraqi army, thus allowing anarchy and the looting of the entire country.
( I know, it was just the same vase over and over, right rummy?)

OH, almost forgot.
When people point out the massive mistakes, call them traitors and attack their patriotism.

Posted by: Observer at June 30, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #163710

“Get typing, Bug! You too, Mr Right! After you finish, let everyone know if you still think war is so great”
Posted by: phx8 at June 30, 2006 04:39 PM

phx8,

Just WHEN and WHERE did I say that war is great???

This was my post:
‘…exposeing our troops to harm, …’
Posted by: BillS at June 30, 2006 01:43 PM

Does anyone else see something wrong with this statement?? Other than the spelling that is??

Posted by: bug at June 30, 2006 03:34 PM


How do you come to your conclusion I said war is great from that?

Posted by: bug at June 30, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #163711

“When you see the term “troll” this is to be defined as Republican or Conservative or maybe just not Liberal or not democrat. “

crmudgeon,
To say that opposing viewpoints are not welcome on this list is to be an absolute liar. I’d say more than half the posters here are not liberal or democrat.
A troll is simply someone, on EITHER SIDE, that posts inflamatory nonsense, doesn’t respond to counter arguments, and is simply trying to derail the conversation.
Example: “democrats side with the terrorists and want us all to wear turbans and worship allah”.
or, “liberals hate america, want our troops to die, and hate bush because he’s so succesful”.
I don’t think anyone ever called YOU a troll, and you DEFINITELY represent the opposite of liberal or democrat.
If you don’t think the forum is worthwhile, LEAVE!

Posted by: Observer at June 30, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #163712

KansasDen — you are so full of lies i do not have time to answer all of them right now but I will start with the first lie you are repeating.

FACT: The administration stated that Iraq was an “imminent” threat!


That is a lie Bush never said the Iraq was an imminent threat, Bush actually said we need to attack Iraq before Iraq becomes an imminent threat. Get it, before, before, before Iraq is a threat.
Here is my proof. Before the Iraq war started but gave the State of the Union Address to the Nation and he talked about Iraq. Here is what the actually said. These are not some reporters words but actual words from Bush.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

That is direct from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html State of the Union Address just before the Iraq war started. Use the URL and do a word search on the word imminent and it will take you directly to it.
Did you read Bush words, “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent”. What bush is saying in that sentence is it is bull shit to wait for imminence and we need to be preemptive before, before, before the threat is imminent.

In an earlier post I said liberal democrats and people on the left love to mince words and look for any verbal nuance and if they find something they can grab hold of they say the President is a liar. Repeating a lie that Bush said that the threat of Iraq was imminent when he actually said we must act before it was imminent proves my point.


Posted by: Mr. Right at June 30, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #163717

Mr. Right,

The administration referred to Iraq as a current imminent threat (many synonymous statements) many times:

“There’s no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States.”
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

“We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was “the most dangerous threat of our time.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

“Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat…He was a threat. He’s not a threat now.”
• President Bush, 7/2/03

“Absolutely.”
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03

“We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended.”
• President Bush 4/24/03

“The threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will be removed.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

“It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended.”
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
• President Bush, 3/19/03

“The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”
• President Bush, 3/16/03

“This is about imminent threat.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is “a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses “terrible threats to the civilized world.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq “threatens the United States of America.”
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

“Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

“Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

“Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It’s a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It’s a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

“The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. … Iraq is a threat, a real threat.”
• President Bush, 1/3/03

“The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.”
• President Bush, 11/23/02

“I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month…So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

“Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.”
• President Bush, 11/3/02

“I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq.”
• President Bush, 11/1/02

“There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein.”
• President Bush, 10/28/02

“The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.”
• President Bush, 10/16/02

“There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.”
• President Bush, 10/7/02

“The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02

“There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02

“This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.”
• President Bush, 9/26/02

“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

“Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

Source: American Progress

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 30, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #163726

All right people just stop it. I come on here looking or intellectual honesty in good faith. You people are the ones that are making the claim the President Bush told the American public that Iraq was a imminent threat to the United States. Show me a speech, radio address, Television interview, or document with Bush saying that Iraq was an imminent threat. Ari Fleischer, Dan Bartlett, Donald Rumsfeld Scott McClellan or anyone else is not President Bush so stop it.

If some one called you a liar you would what them to prove it 100% and you would not let the accuser tell you that someone else said you said it or someone else speaks for you.

Bush said the Iraq was a threat but he did not say it was imminent that is a lie and anyone that repeats it are lying. I gave you 100% proof what President Bush said that we as a nation must act before the threat was imminent. I gave you the URL to the State of the Union transcript in Bush own word and I expect the same form you showing me Bush own words where he said that Iraq was an imminent threat.

When Bush said Iraq was a threat that is not a lie it is an assessment that I agree with. But you people are the one that claim he said the key word imminent. Prove it I want proof.

If Donald Rumsfeld said that Iraq was imminent threat then Donald Rumsfeld is a liar. If Ari Fleischer said that Iraq was imminent threat then Ari Fleischer is a liar. If Donald Rumsfeld tells a lie it does not mean President Bush lied.

It is a big insult to call some one a liar and if you do then it is up to you to prove it 100%. It should be an easy task for you to prove because President Bushs words are record everywhere on every media possible. Just show me one legitimate time where the words came out of Bushs mouth where he said that Iraq threat was imminent. That is all I am asking for.

I know you will not be able too so now you can change the debate to well Bush gave the impression that the Iraq threat was imminent.

You might like calling me a troll but I am the only one that back up my claim the Bush said that we must not wait for Iraq to become imminent.

Posted by: Mr. Right at June 30, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #163728

Lawnboy,

You might add this;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html

George W. Bush
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 17, 2002

“We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.”

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #163732

Bug,
Sorry, my bad. The post should have been directed to Mr Right.

Never let people like that pretend this does not involve human lives. Typically, they want to dehumanize the suffering and the death, and justify the destruction with all kinds of insane gibberish. They have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Again, Bug, apologies.

Posted by: phx8 at June 30, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #163739

Of course Bush’s plan is succeeding. We will have pemanent bases in Iraq after we reduce our troop level. We will have the finest building in Iraq to house our ambassador. And the major oil companies are already sinking their teeth into Iraqi oil. The Iraqis will be hard pressed to find any profit from the oil fields we first destroyed and then repaired for American oil companies.
And then, Bush and company can manufacture WMD’s to suit their purposes.
In the meantime, American troops continue to lose their lives and Iraqis are fleeing their homes to preserve their lives from their own people.
I can see how neocons would be pleased with the outcome of this farcical tragedy.

Posted by: jack p at June 30, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #163740

LawnBoy — here are just some of your quotes from President Bush and I do not see the words where he said the Iraq threat is imminent, do you? None of your quotes that are from Bush have him calling Iraq a imminent threat do you have others that do? I am waiting?

Are you ready to change the discussion from Bush lie by calling Iraq an imminent threat to Bush inferred that the Iraq threat was imminent?

“We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”
• President Bush, 7/17/03
“Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat…He was a threat. He’s not a threat now.”
• President Bush, 7/2/03
“We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended.”
• President Bush 4/24/03
“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
• President Bush, 3/19/03
“The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”
• President Bush, 3/16/03
“The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. … Iraq is a threat, a real threat.”
• President Bush, 1/3/03

President Bush 2003 State of the Union address is a time to capture the biggest audience and explain to the American people why we are going to war and why it must be a preemptive strike. That is why Bush told everyone that we must act before the Iraq threat becomes imminent. You known I am right because you can read the speech and you known those words are in his speech that said we can not wait for the threat to become imminent. I would like you to explain that speech.

Posted by: Mr. Right at June 30, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #163744

Thanks phx8 but…

No one at all seems to see what is wrong with that statement I quoted twice now.

Posted by: bug at June 30, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #163746

Mr. Right,

Presenting quotes in which he didn’t say something in no way proves or disproves whether he said something another time. That’s just silly.

KansasDem said FACT: The administration stated that Iraq was an “imminent” threat! McClellan and Rumsfeld used those exact words. He has been vindicated.

You are changing KansasDem’s claim to be specific to the President. Congrats on the straw man.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 30, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #163752

I have no idea what in the hell you are talking about. I am not changing anything that KansasDems said. When KansasDems said FACT: The administration stated that Iraq was an “imminent” threat! That just triggered the debate that has been going on ever since the Iraq war started and I took the opportunity to debunk the notion that all liberals believe that President Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat.

You know very well that there are millions of liberal democrats that say President Bush lie because he said that the Iraq threat was imminent when it was not imminent. Maybe you do not know that when liberal democrats say Bush lie that is being specific to the President.

From your last post I take it that you are agreeing with me that President Bush never specifically said that the Iraq threat was imminent. I am sure that if you could find an actual quote from President Bush where he said that the Iraq threat was imminent you would throw it in my face and say here it is.

FACT: President Bush prior to the Iraq war never said that Iraq was an imminent threat period.

Presenting quotes in which he didn’t say something in no way proves or disproves whether he said something another time. That’s just silly.

It is not silly because President Bush is most likely the most record person in the world and if you are going to say he said something you have a better chance of finding his words than any other person in the world.

Enjoy your 4 of July

Posted by: Mr. Right at June 30, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #163757

Mr. Right,

Here’s the relevant section:

FACT: The administration stated that Iraq was an �€œimminent�€ threat!


That is a lie Bush never said the Iraq was an imminent threat,

KansasDem said one thing, and then you called him a liar because you changed his claim. If you’re talking about hypothetical discussions, that’s fine, but you owe KansasDem an apology for calling him a liar for your straw man.

From your last post I take it that you are agreeing with me that President Bush never specifically said that the Iraq threat was imminent. I am sure that if you could find an actual quote from President Bush where he said that the Iraq threat was imminent you would throw it in my face and say here it is.

You’re right, we don’t have that specific quote. Instead, we show many, many quotes in which Bush said the identical thing in different words. We also show times when his official spokesman and others used those exact words and others. That’s more than sufficient to prove our point; the Administration deceived the American public. That the particular man in charge didn’t use those particular words does not erase the overall deception.

It is not silly…

Yes, it is silly. Imagine that I denied that Bill Clinton ever said I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I could provide you volume upon volume of quotes from speeches in which Bill Clinton never used those words. If I said that those volumes of speeches in which he didn’t use those words proved that he didn’t use them that cold January day, I’d be laughed off the board.

It’s a basic principle of logic.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 30, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #163760

Mr. Right,

You said, “KansasDen — you are so full of lies i do not have time to answer all of them right now but I will start with the first lie you are repeating.”

If you want to call me an idiot that’s fine. Stupid, still OK. You are calling me a liar. Show me where I lied or go back to your own sand box and play. I am not a liar! I’ve been proven wrong and I’ll admit when I am.

Again, I’m not a liar!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #163761

Adrienne,

Hurry the heck back!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #163762

Lawnboy,

Did you read my post at 6:10pm?

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #163768

Mr. Right,

Read Mr. Bush’s SOTU address for 2003 and then tell me who’s a freakin’ liar.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

You might also want to pay attention to the whole damn speech. Lies, lies, and more lies. The only thing the Neo-cons are good for!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #163770

Rocky,

Good point. I’m surprised American Progress doesn’t include that in their list.

So, Mr. Right, Rocky found a quote where the President talked about Iraq representing an imminent threat. As you can see, your other quotes don’t disprove this evidence.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 30, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #163779

Guys,
what is the point debating mr. rightwing?
You think he’s someone that would EVER change his mind, no matter what evidence?
I wont just dismiss him as a troll, but he’s definitely a bushbot.
How bout we drop that thread and get back to something productive.

Posted by: Observer at June 30, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #163783

Observer,

You’re correct. I started feeding trolls and this is the result. Sorry!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 30, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #163791

The difference is that one plan says we withdraw as conditions warrant. The other says we withdraw according to a arbitrary time line. They may accomplish the same things, but one is a political stunt and the other is based thoughtful consideration.

If Dems really think the military plan is the same as their, they should be happy that they are getting what they want and what they say they believe is best for the country.

BTW Bush did not call Iraq an imminent threat. What he said was, “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”

Those of us who read Engish can see that he is saying the threat is NOT imminent but we cannot wait until it becomes imminent before we act.

Posted by: Jack at June 30, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #163793

Randall Jeremiah et al.
Although my post was not particularly lucid I did not call anyone specific a “chicken hawk.” If that offended any chicken hawks here I apoligize. I sometimes forget what a long and honorable tradition chicken hawks have in this country. Sending other people and other peoples sons and daughters into stupid,avoidable,endless forign wars based on political expediancy,greed,fear and shear momentum is as American as apple pie. At least so long as it is working class kids that get sent. At the forefront of this grand tradition are the Republican congressional delegations,bravely carrying on where there fathers left off. I showed a disgraceful lack of consideration as to just how hard it must be to cry all those crocedile tears in public and then push to cut veterans benefits so Paris Hilton can keep her tax cut. In my defense I must point out I refered to no one as a boot licking toadie,brownshirt thug,or,homophobic miscreant.

bug: It was ever so clever of you to point out my spelling error. You will probably find more above.

Posted by: BillS at June 30, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #163800

Jack:

“…one is a political stunt and the other is based thoughtful consideration. “

None, and I mean none, of this Iraqi fiasco has been based on thoughtful consideration—our entrance was based on mendacity, our stay has been based on corruption, lies, mis- and disinformation, and our exit will be equally meretritious as well. The Bush administration distorted, dissembled and blocked any meaningful Congressional discussion, from torture, to elections, to rebuilding Iraq, to estimations of insurgent strengths and capabilities. This has been a debacle from the word ‘go.’

And the billions of dollars spent on luxury bases with Pizza huts and movie theaters indicate that any withdrawal will not be based on “thoughtful consideration”, it will be based on partisan, neo-con greed and insatiable lust for power and empire.

After the track record of this administration surrounding this whole Iraq caper, your professed faith in their veracity is disingenuous, and highly misplaced.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 30, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #163846

I will predict that we will furthur increase the number of mercenaries,already the third largest force in the “coalition” right after the British, to allow a drawdown of troops before the election. That coupled with various proclamations of victory and a clamp down on media reporting is a campaign strategy,not an exit strategy. We have no intention of leaving and never did.

Posted by: BillS at July 1, 2006 3:46 AM
Comment #163970
If Dems really think the military plan is the same as their, they should be happy that they are getting what they want and what they say they believe is best for the country.

I am happy, Jack. I’m happy the administration is making the best of their failure and working with the military and the Iraqis to set a timetable for withdrawal with honor.

However, I’m highly pissed off that the Bush administration’s incompetence (helped along by the rubber-stamp Republicans in Congress) led America to a military and political failure that has — and will continue to have — a negative effect on my country’s military and diplomatic effectiveness in the world for decades to come.

It’s very reminiscent of Nixon and Ford abandoning Vietnam, don’t you think? It’s Iraqi-ization. If we no longer care how the country is governed or what shape it’s infrastructure is in, then we can leave as soon as we’re sure the government won’t immediately fall to a rag-tag band of insurgents. We win!

So President Bush (over Gen. Casey’s objections, apparently) can set a timetable for the withdrawal of a couple combat brigades by the end of 2006, and many more by the end of 2007. That’s a good timetable, and it’s very similar to the timetable Levin set out. It’s win-win for domestic politics.

Except that we lost Iraq. The Iraq that exists today is a far, far cry from the free-market liberal-democracy with an infrastructure that’s the envy of the Middle East that President Bush said he’d build.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 1, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #163971

BTW, this is the part of Snow’s press conference that cracked me up. He first denies that President Bush is seting a timetable and then gets asked,

Q But doesn’t General Casey — like, part one of his plan has a significant number of troops, two combat brigades, coming out in September. Doesn’t that give the enemy —

MR. SNOW: Well, actually, he has one, and it — you know, again, this is not, I believe the way, at least it was reported, is you’ve got two brigades by the end of the year, September being short of the end of the year.

[Here’s where it gets really funny. Snow admits that Bush has a timetable, but then says]

In any event, you’ve got to keep in mind that this is not a statement of policy. Again, General Casey keeps in mind a number of scenarios. You’re talking about scenarios here.

So I guess Snow is only going to admit that Bush has a timetable for withdrawal if we promise not to call it a timetable for withdrawal. Too funny.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 1, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #163999

“pissed off that the Bush administration’s incompetence (helped along by the rubber-stamp Republicans in Congress) led America to a military and political failure”

Pundit, I’m going to assume you are a democrat. I feel certain I’m not going out on a limb when you fail to acknowledge that that almost to the man democrats supported this war.

You think Snow is funny, then I find it absolutely hilarious how democrats continually pin the war on republicans when they supported it every bit as much as the republicans! I have the quotes and I have the records. I hold every one of you responsible.

That PUNDIT is what pisses guys like me off. I have not forgotten who sent us to war and how only ONE party is continuing the effort while the other attacks and attempts to distance themselves from their vote. Don’t hand me some lame excuse of how Bush “tricked” us. What a crock! I have determined that I will not be voting Independent this year.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 1, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #164006

Curmudgeon,
23 Senators voted against the Resolution for invading Iraq: 1 Republican, 1 Indpendent, and 21 Democrats, mostly liberals. Roughly the same number of Democrats, mostly moderates, voted for the resolution. so the party was split evenly. The Republican party voted almost unanimously for invading Iraq.

Afghanistan received nearly unanimous support from both parties. Protests against going into Afghanistan were small, the largest 10,000. Even today, Democrats and Republicans pretty much agree on Afghanistan.

Iraq generated some of the largest demonstrations around in the world in the history of the world. In the US, enormous protests, one of perhaps one million people, again possibly the largest in US history, demonstrated against invasion.

And before you trot out quotes from Democrats who were duped, remember: lying to Congress is an impeachable offense.

Posted by: phx8 at July 1, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #164014
…only ONE party is continuing the effort…

Why are you continuing the effort? Iraq’s over. Iraq’s future is not going to be any different if we pull out tomorrow or stay for another decade.

The reconstruction failed, they elected an Islamist government, the bedrock of their constitution is repressive Sharia Law, and their constitution specifically states that the oil industry — their only significant economic engine — will remain in the hands of the state. There’s no free market.

More troops aren’t going to change that. Permanent bases aren’t going to change that. And a few hundred Sunni insurgents aren’t going to change that.

The Democrat’s (and now, the administration’s) position makes sense when you understand that the Iraq war is over. All that’s left is to withdraw with “honor”.

If you want to get pissed off at someone, get pissed off at the guys who lost Iraq.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 1, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #164016

“If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”

Those of us who read Engish can see that he is saying the threat is NOT imminent but we cannot wait until it becomes imminent before we act. “

Nice theory, except for the fact that there WAS NO THREAT. Not imminent, not future, not even theoretical.
The resources diverted to this folly constitute the biggest threat to our security. The estimate for completely securing our ports, ALL CARGO, was about 30 billion. We were told we cant afford it. Yet 10 times that amount has already been burned up with no end in sight.
Yeah, real prudent move.

Posted by: Observer at July 1, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #164024

Pundit,

I suggest you take a little review of our own American History. Our nation is where is through a 225 year period of maturity. When our Constitution was first framed we had slavery in our nation, blacks were second class citizens as were women, and women could not vote and were treated as property. Prayer and Bible reading were in the schools, gays had to live a life of secrecy, and women could not have abortions. CHRISTIANITY ruled the day. Just scratching the surface here.

Why do you believe a nation like Iraq should reflect a facet of democracy we did not have when we were first founded as a nation? Just a little presumptuous don’t you think? The situation in Iraq I can assure you is not as simplistic as you would like to paint it in a blog. This I do know, it is better than an animal in control. Funny thing is, Kerry is not advocating cut-n-run as you seem to be.

phx8,

Well, thanks that really does get the other democrats of the hook….right? So, what number of democrats is the proper number to hold them accountable for their votes?

As well, EVERY war we have been a part of has generated mass demonstrations. Even the civil war. Don’t try to paint this as unique to Iraq.

And don’t worry; I won’t trot out the quotes. Not necessary because every thinking American realizes democrats are as accountable as republicans for the war. Republicans just aren’t running from their votes for the most part.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 1, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #164039

Curmudgeon,
Actually, that is a very interesting topic, the history of anti-war protests in the US. I did not see much after a few searches. Obviously Iraq & Vietnam generated large protests. Perhaps the worst protests came during the Civil War, especially the Draft Riots in NYC. As far as I know, Afghanistan, other minor actions, & Korea generated few protests. I am not so sure about WWi & WWII. Anyone?

Posted by: phx8 at July 1, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #164106

Curmudgeon—The congress an senate were given half truths an down right lies from the very first, as the evidence shows! This known fact must than be a fact that you will always defend this lie no matter what the coast. How can you expect others of any political persuasion not to believe you are making up spin or still believe the original lies to begin with.

Posted by: DAVID at July 2, 2006 3:49 AM
Comment #164107
Show me a speech, radio address, Television interview, or document with Bush saying that Iraq was an imminent threat.

This argument always cracks me up. Mr. Right is arguing that we had to invade and occupy Iraq because it was NOT an imminent threat to the US. LOL!

You may be right about Irans back room control but at this point there is no credible evidence

Randall, it’s a fact. From Iran providing the Shiite political parties’ campaign funds to training their government militias to the recent mutual security agreements between the two governments, Shiite Iran has a huge influence on the Iraqi Shiite leadership.

Now lets get to actual fact. The government is a democratic government.

How so? Because they had an election?

If you were paying more attention you would find that the Iraqi infrastructer has had vast improvements.

If you were paying more attention, you’d know that the reconstruction failed. It’s over. There’s no more money being sunk into reconstruction.

The problem with putting a date on it and making it public is then everyone would know.

President Bush and Gen. Casey are putting a date on it. Don’t you find it humorous that Snow is reduced to exclaiming ‘Bush is pulling out to win but the Democrats just want to pull out to leave’?

Posted by: American Pundit at July 2, 2006 4:11 AM
Comment #164109
When our Constitution was first framed… blah, blah…

curmudgeon, are you saying that a government formed today must ignore 225 years worth of history? Perhaps we should have started Iraq with a feudal society and then gently eased them into democracy over the next thousand years. :/

Posted by: American Pundit at July 2, 2006 4:16 AM
Comment #164223

“The congress an senate were given half truths an down right lies from the very first”

I keep hearing this but I have yet to see the proof. What half truths? What evidence? The same proof that Russia and Britian provided? Evidence Sadaam provided? All that I see is democratic assertions without evidence. Intel can be inaccuarte, that doesn’t mean they lied. What it comes down to it is more likely DNC CYA.

Pundit,

No one is saying ignore 225 year of history. This is Iraq’s country and their constitution, they have to learn a lot of things on their own. I guess you would like to tell them about the “wall of separation between church and state”? I’m still trying to find that clause myself. Geez, we don’t have it down ourselves.

phx8,

If you would like to review WWII protest, look in to Joe Kennedy Sr.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 2, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #164263

cal,

“Joe Kennedy Sr”

So what you’re saying is that Kennedy Sr. led a protest down (pick a street here), and was followed by 1,000, or 100,000, or 1,000,000, people?
There were disenters to WW2 but there were no marches on the scale of those in the Vietnam era or the leadup the the Iraq invasion.

I do remember the comment from Bush, “they don’t know what I’m doing, I do”.

You betcha.

Posted by: Rocky at July 2, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #164463

“Victory means exit stratedy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is”…….GW Bush 4/99
If it was good enough to call Bill Clinton on, IT is certainly good enough to call Bushbaby ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“Individuals should be accountable and responsible for their actions” GW while campaigning for gov of Texass. Hope the m*&f827er chokes on his OWN words!

Posted by: qat at July 3, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #164642

Quite right, qat. Remember, it was Dr. Rice who said the 82nd Airborne shouldn’t be used to escort kids to school. That goes for Iraq as well as Kosovo. Hypocrites.

Posted by: American Pundit at July 4, 2006 12:19 AM
Comment #277002

I’ve just gotta say, it’s because of this media-driven bush smear campaign that I have such a loathing anger towards the left. I’m all for free expression. but when you have an out of control liberal media literally blaming bush for el ninio, and quite literally creating a recession; I can take no more. before you dispute me, allow me to make it clear…when a person is constantly hearing the same disinformation from every media outlet over an extended period of time(8yrs?), they change their behavior accordingly. funny how that iraque war has been all but dropped since obama. congradulations, you’ve mastered the ability to play on Americans fear & stupidity.

Posted by: xyz at March 7, 2009 12:36 AM
Post a comment