LOL O'Reilly Fails

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I'll list one. Invading Iraq.

I'll list another, depending on which side of his flip flops you choose. McCain has spoken on both sides regarding expanding the powers of the executive branch under FISA and granting the telcos retroactive immunity for their part in previous unwarranted spying on American citizens.

McCain couldn't keep his Double Talk Express on track if it had training wheels.

I believe Red Dawn was talking about a "mulititude of failed policies he supported reguarding Iraq"

I believe the issues I noted are inextrictably locked with your Traitor In Chief's pursuit of his war of lies.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely, going to war without enough troops and going to war without enough equipment just to name a few.

Then, of course, there's that small issue about starting a war where each and every successive excuse he's given for starting that war, and squandering thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, was lie after lie, after lie, after lie, after lie.

Somehow, it just doesn't seem worth the price.
rose.gif
:(
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: nick1985

That trying to somehow pin the downfalls of the war in Iraq on McCain is assanine, because he was agaisnt the way it was being handled from the get go.

But you don't fault McSame for being stupid enough to pimp the underlying lies the Bushwhackos continue to spew for invading Iraq in the first place, or for flip flopping on the Bushwhackos' domestic spying, or for committing torture and other war crimes, or the rest of the stupidity surrounding this tragic, horrific embarrassment to the American people?

McSame has flipped on so many issues to pimp himself to whoever he thinks will vote for him, he couldn't keep his Double Talk Express on track if it had training wheels. :roll:
Pssst, COPS is on so he won't be responding for a while

Actually COPS was on, so was America's Most Wanted. I enjoyed both. :thumbsup:

But your right, when I see the parot emoticon I tend to scroll right past. Usually its his same copy and paste post about bushwackos and lies filled with a bunch of stupid ass emoticons.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Harvey
I believe the issues I noted are inextrictably locked with your Traitor In Chief's pursuit of his war of lies.

"Unwarranted spying on American citizens" is part of the Iraq war?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Harvey
I believe the issues I noted are inextrictably locked with your Traitor In Chief's pursuit of his war of lies.

"Unwarranted spying on American citizens" is part of the Iraq war?

Actually yes it is, or at least close enough not to matter. Bush's basis for his illegal warrantless wiretapping program relies upon the AUMF, the same deal that 'authorized' the Iraq war.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Harvey
I believe the issues I noted are inextrictably locked with your Traitor In Chief's pursuit of his war of lies.

"Unwarranted spying on American citizens" is part of the Iraq war?

Actually yes it is, or at least close enough not to matter. Bush's basis for his illegal warrantless wiretapping program relies upon the AUMF, the same deal that 'authorized' the Iraq war.

Wrong. While Bush may use teh AUMF for his reason to do so, the "warrentless wiretapping" is not limited to the Iraq war, nor is it a "failed policy", which is what Red Dawn was orginally suggesting McCain supports.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I'll list one. Invading Iraq.

I'll list another, depending on which side of his flip flops you choose. McCain has spoken on both sides regarding expanding the powers of the executive branch under FISA and granting the telcos retroactive immunity for their part in previous unwarranted spying on American citizens.

McCain couldn't keep his Double Talk Express on track if it had training wheels.

I believe Red Dawn was talking about a "mulititude of failed policies he supported reguarding Iraq"
going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely, going to war without enough troops and going to war without enough equipment just to name a few.

And you think McCain supported all of these?


.....
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: nick1985
AHAHAHA Is this shitbag really coming close to tears at the end, or is he faking it? LOL thats just too funny to pass up.



I like how the huffington post crowd (which always supplies guests to mathhews, olberman, and abrams) sucks his dick. Heres some of the comments

"Keith is refreshing to listen to."

"My hero, Keith Olbermann"

"Keith Olbermann: Thank You, for speaking your mind and for honoring the sacrifice our soldiers have made"

"Keith Olbermann deserves an Emmy for this"


Man, talk about having a stiffy for someone. If this idiot is anyones 'hero', they need to get out more.

Yeah, because O'Reilly *never* reads letters at the end of his show:

"Oh Bill, I think you are Christ incarnate and the best thing to happen to this world since sliced bread and elastic waistbands! Don't listen to those letters where people post silly things like 'facts' and 'proof' - anything you say is gospel! All hail O'Reilly!"

Face it - you and your fellow zealous hero-creators live on both side of the fence.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I'll list one. Invading Iraq.

I'll list another, depending on which side of his flip flops you choose. McCain has spoken on both sides regarding expanding the powers of the executive branch under FISA and granting the telcos retroactive immunity for their part in previous unwarranted spying on American citizens.

McCain couldn't keep his Double Talk Express on track if it had training wheels.

I believe Red Dawn was talking about a "mulititude of failed policies he supported reguarding Iraq"
going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely, going to war without enough troops and going to war without enough equipment just to name a few.

And you think McCain supported all of these?


.....
By supporting the Bush Administrations invasion and subsequent prosecution of this unnecessary war he sure did.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: nick1985
AHAHAHA Is this shitbag really coming close to tears at the end, or is he faking it? LOL thats just too funny to pass up.



I like how the huffington post crowd (which always supplies guests to mathhews, olberman, and abrams) sucks his dick. Heres some of the comments

"Keith is refreshing to listen to."

"My hero, Keith Olbermann"

"Keith Olbermann: Thank You, for speaking your mind and for honoring the sacrifice our soldiers have made"

"Keith Olbermann deserves an Emmy for this"


Man, talk about having a stiffy for someone. If this idiot is anyones 'hero', they need to get out more.

Yeah, because O'Reilly *never* reads letters at the end of his show:

"Oh Bill, I think you are Christ incarnate and the best thing to happen to this world since sliced bread and elastic waistbands! Don't listen to those letters where people post silly things like 'facts' and 'proof' - anything you say is gospel! All hail O'Reilly!"

Face it - you and your fellow zealous hero-creators live on both side of the fence.
Does Olbermann have the gall to write books telling parents how to raise their children like O'Reilly does?
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
By supporting the Bush Administrations invasion and subsequent prosecution of this unnecessary war he sure did.

Nice dodge. Try again.

Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
failed policies regarding Iraq.

McCain has proven to be RIGHT on Iraq. The surge has succeeded.
Of temporarily reversing the course of the multitude of failed policies he supported regarding Iraq

Care to list them?

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
By supporting the Bush Administrations invasion and subsequent prosecution of this unnecessary war he sure did.

Nice dodge. Try again.

If you don't agree with my answer then it's on you to disprove it.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
By supporting the Bush Administrations invasion and subsequent prosecution of this unnecessary war he sure did.

Nice dodge. Try again.

If you don't agree with my answer then it's on you to disprove it.

LOL. No its not. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on YOU! Now prove that McCain supported a "multitude of failed policies regarding Iraq." Shouldnt be too hard if you actually believe what you are posting.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
By supporting the Bush Administrations invasion and subsequent prosecution of this unnecessary war he sure did.

Nice dodge. Try again.

If you don't agree with my answer then it's on you to disprove it.

LOL. No its not. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on YOU! Now prove that McCain supported a "multitude of failed policies regarding Iraq." Shouldnt be too hard if you actually believe what you are posting.
You play this game all too much here. I answered, you didn't like my answer, it's up to you to disprove it.

 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You play this game all too much here. I answered, you didn't like my answer, it's up to you to disprove it.

I think we both know your refusal to prove your own points shows lack of substance to begin with.

If I were to come on here and say "I know 100% there is a God" I would be told to prove it.

If I were to come on here and say "There were WMDs in Iraq" I would be told to prove it.

So since you come here and say "McCain supported a "multitude of failed policies regarding Iraq", of course you are supposed to be able to prove it. Come on this one shouldnt be so hard if you have such a strong opinion reguarding McCain on Iraq.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Nice sig Corbett. Glad you'd rather have this guy that an intelligent articulate thinker who is more elite than the average american. We may want to marry the girl next door but I sure as shit don't want the guy next door to be the president.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You play this game all too much here. I answered, you didn't like my answer, it's up to you to disprove it.

I think we both know your refusal to prove your own points shows lack of substance to begin with.
No I think we both know that this is a typical trollish behavior you often display here on this forum when you don't agree with somebody

If I were to come on here and say "I know 100% there is a God" I would be told to prove it.
There is no way for you to prove something that doesn't exist, I wouldn't waste my time asking you to prove it

If I were to come on here and say "There were WMDs in Iraq" I would be told to prove it.
It's already been shown that they didn't exist in the context Bush and McCain said they did

So since you come here and say "McCain supported a "multitude of failed policies regarding Iraq", of course you are supposed to be able to prove it. Come on this one shouldnt be so hard if you have such a strong opinion reguarding McCain on Iraq.
I did with my answer, now stop being such an annoying little bitch with your trollish games.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You play this game all too much here. I answered, you didn't like my answer, it's up to you to disprove it.

I think we both know your refusal to prove your own points shows lack of substance to begin with.
No I think we both know that this is a typical trollish behavior you often display here on this forum when you don't agree with somebody

If I were to come on here and say "I know 100% there is a God" I would be told to prove it.
There is no way for you to prove something that doesn't exist, I wouldn't waste my time asking you to prove it

If I were to come on here and say "There were WMDs in Iraq" I would be told to prove it.
It's already been shown that they didn't exist in the context Bush and McCain said they did

So since you come here and say "McCain supported a "multitude of failed policies regarding Iraq", of course you are supposed to be able to prove it. Come on this one shouldnt be so hard if you have such a strong opinion reguarding McCain on Iraq.
I did with my answer, now stop being such an annoying little bitch with your trollish games.

Exactly. Good to know your claims are just words, and no substance.

I asked for the long list you suggested you had of McCain's supporting Bush's failed policies in Iraq and you instead say I am somehow trolling when really, I just want to see if there is any substance behind what you claim. Now that we both know there obviously isn't we can move along and you can continue to make the same baseless claims.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You play this game all too much here. I answered, you didn't like my answer, it's up to you to disprove it.

I think we both know your refusal to prove your own points shows lack of substance to begin with.
No I think we both know that this is a typical trollish behavior you often display here on this forum when you don't agree with somebody

If I were to come on here and say "I know 100% there is a God" I would be told to prove it.
There is no way for you to prove something that doesn't exist, I wouldn't waste my time asking you to prove it

If I were to come on here and say "There were WMDs in Iraq" I would be told to prove it.
It's already been shown that they didn't exist in the context Bush and McCain said they did

So since you come here and say "McCain supported a "multitude of failed policies regarding Iraq", of course you are supposed to be able to prove it. Come on this one shouldnt be so hard if you have such a strong opinion reguarding McCain on Iraq.
I did with my answer, now stop being such an annoying little bitch with your trollish games.

Exactly. Good to know your claims are just words, and no substance.

I asked for the long list you suggested you had of McCain's supporting Bush's failed policies in Iraq and you instead say I am somehow trolling when really, I just want to see if there is any substance behind what you claim. Now that we both know there obviously isn't we can move along and you can continue to make the same baseless claims.
There is nothing baseless about my claims troll, you just don't like my answer which listed some of the failed policies that McCain supported and I assume you support since you seem to brush them off as nothing. In essence my condemnation of McCain and Bush is a condemnation of you are you also supported those failed policies by supporting Bush and now McCain.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There is nothing baseless about my claims troll, you just don't like my answer which listed some of the failed policies that McCain supported and I assume you support since you seem to brush them off as nothing. In essence my condemnation of McCain and Bush is a condemnation of you are you also supported those failed policies by supporting Bush and now McCain.

What answer? You didnt give much of one. Lets recap, since you seem to be having memory problems :

You listed the following when I asked you to list the "multitude of failed policies in Iraq that McCain supports" :

- going to war without a strategy
- going to war prematurely
- going to war without enough troops
- going to war without enough equipment

Then I asked if you REALLY believe McCain supported those policies and you said :

By supporting the Bush Administrations invasion and subsequent prosecution of this unnecessary war he sure did.

If thats not a dodge, I dont know what is.

That list of 4 points is not a "multitude"

McCain did not support some of those points.

And now you say I support those policies too.

Just because I support finishing what we started does not mean I somehow supported those weak points you made, and the same goes for McCain.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
There is nothing baseless about my claims troll, you just don't like my answer which listed some of the failed policies that McCain supported and I assume you support since you seem to brush them off as nothing. In essence my condemnation of McCain and Bush is a condemnation of you are you also supported those failed policies by supporting Bush and now McCain.

What answer? You didnt give much of one. Lets recap, since you seem to be having memory problems :

You listed the following when I asked you to list the "multitude of failed policies in Iraq that McCain supports" :

- going to war without a strategy
- going to war prematurely
- going to war without enough troops
- going to war without enough equipment

Then I asked if you REALLY believe McCain supported those policies and you said :

By supporting the Bush Administrations invasion and subsequent prosecution of this unnecessary war he sure did.

If thats not a dodge, I dont know what is.

That list of 4 points is not a "multitude"
So you believe that this Administration which McCain whole heartedly supported didn't make a lot of error in the prosecution of the invasion and occupation? Do you believe that those were the only 4 errors made?

McCain did not support some of those points.
Can you prove that?

And now you say I support those policies too.

Just because I support finishing what we started does not mean I somehow supported those weak points you made, and the same goes for McCain.
So you agree that the invasion of Iraq and the prosecution of the war and occupation was wrong?

 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you believe that this Administration which McCain whole heartedly supported didn't make a lot of error in the prosecution of the invasion and occupation?

I believe there were MANY errors made in the Iraq war. I don't believe McCain "whol heartedly supported" all which the Bush administration did with the war. You and I both know that.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Do you believe that those were the only 4 errors made?

No.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
McCain did not support some of those points.
Can you prove that?

Absolutely. What you listed was the Rumsfeld strategy, which we all know McCain was one of the loudest opponents of.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you agree that the invasion of Iraq and the prosecution of the war and occupation was wrong?

I believe we obviously made mistakes in invading Iraq. However, I also believe we have the responsibility of cleaning up what we created in Iraq.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Here some more as reported by General Petreus

? There was the feeling that elections would enhance the Iraqi sense of nationalism. Instead, the elections hardened sectarian positions as Iraqis voted largely based on ethnic and sectarian group identity.
? There was an underestimation of the security challenges in Iraq, particularly in 2006 in the wake of the bombing of the mosque in Samara, coupled with an over-estimation of our ability to create new security institutions following the disbandment of the Iraqi security forces ? which was not helped by the planning issues described below.
? It repeatedly took us time to recognize changes in the security environment and to react to them. What began as an insurgency has morphed into a conflict that includes insurgent attacks, terrorism, sectarian violence, and violent crime.
. . .
? Misconduct at Abu Gharyb and in other less sensational, but still damaging cases, inflamed the insurgency and damaged the credibility of Coalition forces in Iraq, in the region, and around the world.
. . .
? Although not a problem in the 101st Airborne Division AOR during my time as 101st commander, it is clear that in certain other AORs there were more tasks than troops ? especially in Anbar Province for at least the first year and likely in other areas as well.
? Finally, the strategy pursued in the wake of the bombing of the Al Askariya Mosque in Samarra in February 2006 was unable to arrest the spiraling violence and rise of harmful sectarian activities. Repeated operations in Baghdad, in particular, to clear, hold, and build did not prove durable due to lack of sufficient Iraqi and Coalition Forces for the hold phase of the operations.

Text

Here's some more:
* Underestimating the enemy. As in Vietnam, the superpower?s potent military has been astounded by the tenacity and competence of a nationalist rebellion attempting to throw a foreign occupier from its soil.

For example, the U.S. military, a hierarchical organization, views the Sunni insurgency as disorganized and without a central command structure.

Yet the insurgents are using this decentralized structure very effectively and are not threatened by any U.S. decapitation strike to severely wound the rebellion by killing its leaders.

* Deceiving the American public about how badly the war is going. President Bush continues to talk of victory, and his chief military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, argued that the United States was making ?very, very good progress? just two days before the more credible U.S. ambassador to Iraq warned that a civil war was possible in Iraq.

President Lyndon Johnson painted an excessively rosy picture of U.S. involvement in Vietnam until the massive communist Tet offensive against the south in 1968 created a ?credibility gap? in the public mind.

The U.S. and South Vietnamese militaries successfully beat back the offensive, but the war was lost politically because the U.S. government lost the confidence of its own citizens.

The Bush administration has fallen into the same trap by trying to ?spin? away bad news from Iraq. Polls ominously indicate that Bush?s trustworthiness in the eyes of the American public has plummeted more than 20 points since September of 2003 to 40 percent.

* The Bush administration, like the Johnson and Nixon administrations, blames the media?s negative coverage for plunging popular support of the war.

Yet the nature of the press is that it would rather cover extraordinary negative events, such as fires and plane crashes, than more mundane positive developments.

Vietnam demonstrated that normal media coverage of mistakes in war could undermine the war effort. The Bush administration should have expected such predictable media coverage.

* Artificial government statistics cannot be used to measure progress in a counterinsurgency war. In Vietnam, the body counts of North Vietnamese/Viet Cong were always much greater than U.S./South Vietnamese deaths.

Lately, the Bush administration has touted that fewer U.S. personnel are dying in Iraq.

But U.S. forces have been pulled back from the fight to reduce U.S. casualties and to train Iraqi forces. In guerilla warfare, despite unfavorable statistics, as long as the insurgents keep an army in the field, they can win as the foreign invader tires of the occupation.

* The initial excessive use of force in counterinsurgency warfare instead of a plan to win hearts and minds. The U.S. military, since the days of U.S. Grant, has used superior firepower to win wars of attrition against its enemies.

In Vietnam, the U.S. military used such tactics initially, but later adopted a softer counterinsurgency strategy only after it was too late.

The Bush administration initially blasted towns like Falluja into rubble and only now, in an attempt to reduce support for the guerillas among the already angry population, is converting to a strategy aimed at winning Iraqi hearts and minds.

* Failed ?search and destroy? tactics belatedly gave way to the ?inkblot? approach of clearing and holding ground.

In both Vietnam and Iraq, after search and destroy missions, enemy fighters merely returned to areas when ?victorious? U.S. forces left. But not enough U.S. forces are in Iraq to make the ?clear and hold? method work.

* ?Iraqization? of the war parallels the unsuccessful ?Vietnamization? in the 1970s. The Nixon administration never fully explained how the less capable South Vietnamese military could defeat the insurgency when the powerful U.S. military had failed. The same problem exists in Iraq.

* As in Vietnam, there has been no ?date certain? for withdrawal of U.S. forces. President Bush recently implied that U.S. forces would be in Iraq when the next president takes office. Such an indefinite commitment of U.S. forces convinces more Iraqis that the United States is an occupier that needs to be resisted.

* Retention of incompetent policymakers. Lyndon Johnson retained Robert McNamara, the inept architect of the Vietnam strategy, as Secretary of Defense until McNamara himself turned against his own war. Bush has kept the bungling Donald Rumsfeld on too long in the same position.

* Most important of all, starting a war with another country for concocted reasons, which did not hold up under scrutiny.

Lyndon Johnson used a questionable alleged attack by Vietnamese patrol boats on a U.S. destroyer to escalate U.S. involvement in a backwater country that was hardly strategic to the United States.

Bush exaggerated the dangers from Iraqi weapons programs and implied an invented link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks.

In a republic, the lack of a compelling rationale for sending men to die in a distant war can be corrosive for the morale of the troops and public support back home.

The Bush administration is now suffering for its shocking failure to learn the lessons of the tragedy of Vietnam.



Hell even Condi Rice said there were "Thousands" of mistakes made in Iraq.



 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Here some more as reported by General Petreus

? There was the feeling that elections would enhance the Iraqi sense of nationalism. Instead, the elections hardened sectarian positions as Iraqis voted largely based on ethnic and sectarian group identity.
? There was an underestimation of the security challenges in Iraq, particularly in 2006 in the wake of the bombing of the mosque in Samara, coupled with an over-estimation of our ability to create new security institutions following the disbandment of the Iraqi security forces ? which was not helped by the planning issues described below.
? It repeatedly took us time to recognize changes in the security environment and to react to them. What began as an insurgency has morphed into a conflict that includes insurgent attacks, terrorism, sectarian violence, and violent crime.
. . .
? Misconduct at Abu Gharyb and in other less sensational, but still damaging cases, inflamed the insurgency and damaged the credibility of Coalition forces in Iraq, in the region, and around the world.
. . .
? Although not a problem in the 101st Airborne Division AOR during my time as 101st commander, it is clear that in certain other AORs there were more tasks than troops ? especially in Anbar Province for at least the first year and likely in other areas as well.
? Finally, the strategy pursued in the wake of the bombing of the Al Askariya Mosque in Samarra in February 2006 was unable to arrest the spiraling violence and rise of harmful sectarian activities. Repeated operations in Baghdad, in particular, to clear, hold, and build did not prove durable due to lack of sufficient Iraqi and Coalition Forces for the hold phase of the operations.

Text

Here's some more:
* Underestimating the enemy. As in Vietnam, the superpower?s potent military has been astounded by the tenacity and competence of a nationalist rebellion attempting to throw a foreign occupier from its soil.

For example, the U.S. military, a hierarchical organization, views the Sunni insurgency as disorganized and without a central command structure.

Yet the insurgents are using this decentralized structure very effectively and are not threatened by any U.S. decapitation strike to severely wound the rebellion by killing its leaders.

* Deceiving the American public about how badly the war is going. President Bush continues to talk of victory, and his chief military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, argued that the United States was making ?very, very good progress? just two days before the more credible U.S. ambassador to Iraq warned that a civil war was possible in Iraq.

President Lyndon Johnson painted an excessively rosy picture of U.S. involvement in Vietnam until the massive communist Tet offensive against the south in 1968 created a ?credibility gap? in the public mind.

The U.S. and South Vietnamese militaries successfully beat back the offensive, but the war was lost politically because the U.S. government lost the confidence of its own citizens.

The Bush administration has fallen into the same trap by trying to ?spin? away bad news from Iraq. Polls ominously indicate that Bush?s trustworthiness in the eyes of the American public has plummeted more than 20 points since September of 2003 to 40 percent.

* The Bush administration, like the Johnson and Nixon administrations, blames the media?s negative coverage for plunging popular support of the war.

Yet the nature of the press is that it would rather cover extraordinary negative events, such as fires and plane crashes, than more mundane positive developments.

Vietnam demonstrated that normal media coverage of mistakes in war could undermine the war effort. The Bush administration should have expected such predictable media coverage.

* Artificial government statistics cannot be used to measure progress in a counterinsurgency war. In Vietnam, the body counts of North Vietnamese/Viet Cong were always much greater than U.S./South Vietnamese deaths.

Lately, the Bush administration has touted that fewer U.S. personnel are dying in Iraq.

But U.S. forces have been pulled back from the fight to reduce U.S. casualties and to train Iraqi forces. In guerilla warfare, despite unfavorable statistics, as long as the insurgents keep an army in the field, they can win as the foreign invader tires of the occupation.

* The initial excessive use of force in counterinsurgency warfare instead of a plan to win hearts and minds. The U.S. military, since the days of U.S. Grant, has used superior firepower to win wars of attrition against its enemies.

In Vietnam, the U.S. military used such tactics initially, but later adopted a softer counterinsurgency strategy only after it was too late.

The Bush administration initially blasted towns like Falluja into rubble and only now, in an attempt to reduce support for the guerillas among the already angry population, is converting to a strategy aimed at winning Iraqi hearts and minds.

* Failed ?search and destroy? tactics belatedly gave way to the ?inkblot? approach of clearing and holding ground.

In both Vietnam and Iraq, after search and destroy missions, enemy fighters merely returned to areas when ?victorious? U.S. forces left. But not enough U.S. forces are in Iraq to make the ?clear and hold? method work.

* ?Iraqization? of the war parallels the unsuccessful ?Vietnamization? in the 1970s. The Nixon administration never fully explained how the less capable South Vietnamese military could defeat the insurgency when the powerful U.S. military had failed. The same problem exists in Iraq.

* As in Vietnam, there has been no ?date certain? for withdrawal of U.S. forces. President Bush recently implied that U.S. forces would be in Iraq when the next president takes office. Such an indefinite commitment of U.S. forces convinces more Iraqis that the United States is an occupier that needs to be resisted.

* Retention of incompetent policymakers. Lyndon Johnson retained Robert McNamara, the inept architect of the Vietnam strategy, as Secretary of Defense until McNamara himself turned against his own war. Bush has kept the bungling Donald Rumsfeld on too long in the same position.

* Most important of all, starting a war with another country for concocted reasons, which did not hold up under scrutiny.

Lyndon Johnson used a questionable alleged attack by Vietnamese patrol boats on a U.S. destroyer to escalate U.S. involvement in a backwater country that was hardly strategic to the United States.

Bush exaggerated the dangers from Iraqi weapons programs and implied an invented link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks.

In a republic, the lack of a compelling rationale for sending men to die in a distant war can be corrosive for the morale of the troops and public support back home.

The Bush administration is now suffering for its shocking failure to learn the lessons of the tragedy of Vietnam.



Hell even Condi Rice said there were "Thousands" of mistakes made in Iraq.

Nobody is disagreeing with you that there were mistakes made in Iraq. What I disagree with you on is that you say McCain supports them all.