More Bad News for Kerry

[etech]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Here is the link

Perhaps this is a sign of a new beginning on foreign relations for Mr. Bush.

It has been Kerry who has been pushing for greater UN involvement not Bush.

Why?

How much money is the UN going to contribute. How many forces is the UN going to contibute. What is the UN going to do?

If the answer is anything at all like the UN oil for food program and its scandal, is that what is wanted?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
as i predicted inone of my earlier posts...Bush is now asking NATO to play a bigger role in Iraq..you can expectthe Iraqi's to ask this as well.

the europeans will have to cooperate..

yep, as they use to say on that TV show (which one was it? the one with Mr. T)..'it's great when a plan comes together!"

NATO must not have gotten the memo. Bush: No new NATO troops to Iraq

 

[conjur]

"Most of the security in Iraq would be provided by Iraqis," Bush said, "What we are suggesting is for NATO perhaps to help train" those security forces.

Yeah...because we've done a pretty piss-poor job of training them on our own.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: conjur

"Most of the security in Iraq would be provided by Iraqis," Bush said, "What we are suggesting is for NATO perhaps to help train" those security forces.

Yeah...because we've done a pretty piss-poor job of training them on our own.

I thought it was because France and Germany are still sulking and also wouldn't dare risk an attack by terrorists if they actually helped Iraq become a sucessful nation.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

"Most of the security in Iraq would be provided by Iraqis," Bush said, "What we are suggesting is for NATO perhaps to help train" those security forces.

Yeah...because we've done a pretty piss-poor job of training them on our own.

I thought it was because France and Germany are still sulking and also wouldn't dare risk an attack by terrorists if they actually helped Iraq become a sucessful nation.

You thought wrong:

U.S. General: Iraq Police Training a Flop

Or, perhaps you like your news with a little right twist:

U.S. General: Iraqi Police Were Trained Poorly

Iraqi forces a long way from being ready

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

"Most of the security in Iraq would be provided by Iraqis," Bush said, "What we are suggesting is for NATO perhaps to help train" those security forces.

Yeah...because we've done a pretty piss-poor job of training them on our own.

I thought it was because France and Germany are still sulking and also wouldn't dare risk an attack by terrorists if they actually helped Iraq become a sucessful nation.

You thought wrong:

U.S. General: Iraq Police Training a Flop

Or, perhaps you like your news with a little right twist:

U.S. General: Iraqi Police Were Trained Poorly

Iraqi forces a long way from being ready

No, I didn't think wrong. You didn't address at all why France and Germany are sulking and cowering in their respective countries refusing to do anything to help Iraq and the Iraqi people.

 

[conjur]

Your attempt to divert the issue has been noted. The issue is the Iraqi security force training.

Note my comment to which you replied:

Yeah...because we've done a pretty piss-poor job of training them on our own.

The U.S. and Britain have been behind that so far. That training has gone very slowly and the results have been disastrous.

Perhaps NATO can do a better job but I doubt it. It will take time before Iraqis will willingly enforce order over other Iraqis.

 

[Infohawk]

This is an example of what CADkindaGUY refers to when he speaks of the glass half-empty kind of attitude in politics. Instead of being happy that our country got its heavily modfied resolution through the UN for its own sake, it is being used as an anti-Kerry argument.

Also noteworthy here is that apparently the administration has changed its attitude towards the US. Isn't the UN irrelevant to them? Any ideas of what made them change their tune?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
as i predicted inone of my earlier posts...Bush is now asking NATO to play a bigger role in Iraq..you can expectthe Iraqi's to ask this as well.

the europeans will have to cooperate..

yep, as they use to say on that TV show (which one was it? the one with Mr. T)..'it's great when a plan comes together!"

Originally posted by: chess9
SuperTool:

Yes, HS is correct about that. The Europeans would look petty and vindictive now if they didn't come on board. Bush reeled them in big time.

By the way, I also think this is bad news for Kerry. If Bush had failed to bring the U.N. into the Iraq equation the people on the fence would have been less likely to vote for him, IMHO.

If the economy keeps up the steam its had for the last few months and Iraq doesn't blow up in his face, I'd say Bush is a mortal lock to win.

-Robert

Chess9 and Heartsurgeon eating your words, how are they tasting?

Bush: New NATO Troops in Iraq Not Likely

Ha
Ha
Ha Ha Ha

 

[etech]

Actually Chess9 hit the nail on the head and is 100% correct.

"The Europeans would look petty and vindictive now if they didn't come on board"

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: etech
Actually Chess9 hit the nail on the head and is 100% correct.

"The Europeans would look petty and vindictive now if they didn't come on board"

You're ignoring that he also said "heartsurgeon" was right. And we've seen now "heartsurgeon" was wrong. Hence, Chess9 was not 100% correct. And you are wrong.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is an example of what CADkindaGUY refers to when he speaks of the glass half-empty kind of attitude in politics. Instead of being happy that our country got its heavily modfied resolution through the UN for its own sake, it is being used as an anti-Kerry argument.

Also noteworthy here is that apparently the administration has changed its attitude towards the US. Isn't the UN irrelevant to them? Any ideas of what made them change their tune?

No, actually this would be sarcastic gloating If you notice the "bad news for Bush" thing has become a theme - this was a parody of that. I don't look at this as "bad news for kerry" - I look at it as a step in the right direction by the UN and the Security Council. This is a positive development for the Iraqis and the world as a whole. A recognized and free Iraq will help fulfill the UN's wish to create security in the region and International peace that they wanted 12+ years ago.

Oh, and no the Admin didn't change it's attitude. Bush wanted the UN and it's members to step up to the plate regarding Iraq from the start - hopefully they now will.
NATO troops not coming into Iraq isn't a hopeful sign though.

CkG

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: etech
Actually Chess9 hit the nail on the head and is 100% correct.

"The Europeans would look petty and vindictive now if they didn't come on board"

You're ignoring that he also said "heartsurgeon" was right. And we've seen now "heartsurgeon" was wrong. Hence, Chess9 was not 100% correct. And you are wrong.

Chess9 is 100% correct on the part that I quoted.

It's too early to say if the Europeans will put their stubborness or their willingness to help the people of Iraq first. We shall see.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is an example of what CADkindaGUY refers to when he speaks of the glass half-empty kind of attitude in politics. Instead of being happy that our country got its heavily modfied resolution through the UN for its own sake, it is being used as an anti-Kerry argument.

Also noteworthy here is that apparently the administration has changed its attitude towards the US. Isn't the UN irrelevant to them? Any ideas of what made them change their tune?

No, actually this would be sarcastic gloating If you notice the "bad news for Bush" thing has become a theme - this was a parody of that. I don't look at this as "bad news for kerry" - I look at it as a step in the right direction by the UN and the Security Council. This is a positive development for the Iraqis and the world as a whole. A recognized and free Iraq will help fulfill the UN's wish to create security in the region and International peace that they wanted 12+ years ago.

Oh, and no the Admin didn't change it's attitude. Bush wanted the UN and it's members to step up to the plate regarding Iraq from the start - hopefully they now will.
NATO troops not coming into Iraq isn't a hopeful sign though.

CkG

You keep forgetting the very valid reason behind all of the bad news for Bush. It's because there is no good news. This administration is self-destructing.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
If you notice the "bad news for Bush" thing has become a theme - this was a parody of that.

If the OP says it's a parody I'll believe him but first he'll have to explain why he defended the statement that this is indeed bad news for Kerry in the subsequent posts. Those posts and the widespread distaste for Kerry among conservatives on this board make me think it wasn't a parody.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is an example of what CADkindaGUY refers to when he speaks of the glass half-empty kind of attitude in politics. Instead of being happy that our country got its heavily modfied resolution through the UN for its own sake, it is being used as an anti-Kerry argument.

Also noteworthy here is that apparently the administration has changed its attitude towards the US. Isn't the UN irrelevant to them? Any ideas of what made them change their tune?

No, actually this would be sarcastic gloating If you notice the "bad news for Bush" thing has become a theme - this was a parody of that. I don't look at this as "bad news for kerry" - I look at it as a step in the right direction by the UN and the Security Council. This is a positive development for the Iraqis and the world as a whole. A recognized and free Iraq will help fulfill the UN's wish to create security in the region and International peace that they wanted 12+ years ago.

Oh, and no the Admin didn't change it's attitude. Bush wanted the UN and it's members to step up to the plate regarding Iraq from the start - hopefully they now will.
NATO troops not coming into Iraq isn't a hopeful sign though.

CkG

You keep forgetting the very valid reason behind all of the bad news for Bush. It's because there is no good news. This administration is self-destructing.

There is plenty of good news. There are just quite a few folks trying to spin the good news as bad as possible.

I heard CNN earlier announce that hp was hiring 5000 people, but I think they let dave write the script.
HP announcing they are going to hire 5000 people is good news.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: charrison

I heard CNN earlier announce that hp was hiring 5000 people, but I think they let dave write the script.
HP announcing they are going to hire 5000 people is good news.

Wasn't it also pointed out that those 5000 could also be going to other countries? It's great to be happy for other people (and unlike you charrison, most conservatives didn't respond to my thread about Republicans not really caring about other countries- thanks), but should we also post about the hundreds of thousands of young men who lost their virginity yesterday?

In sum, there's nothing wrong with good news, but it's irresponsible not to put it into context. If we ignore the "negative" side of things we can't make good judgments.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk
This is an example of what CADkindaGUY refers to when he speaks of the glass half-empty kind of attitude in politics. Instead of being happy that our country got its heavily modfied resolution through the UN for its own sake, it is being used as an anti-Kerry argument.

Also noteworthy here is that apparently the administration has changed its attitude towards the US. Isn't the UN irrelevant to them? Any ideas of what made them change their tune?

No, actually this would be sarcastic gloating If you notice the "bad news for Bush" thing has become a theme - this was a parody of that. I don't look at this as "bad news for kerry" - I look at it as a step in the right direction by the UN and the Security Council. This is a positive development for the Iraqis and the world as a whole. A recognized and free Iraq will help fulfill the UN's wish to create security in the region and International peace that they wanted 12+ years ago.

Oh, and no the Admin didn't change it's attitude. Bush wanted the UN and it's members to step up to the plate regarding Iraq from the start - hopefully they now will.
NATO troops not coming into Iraq isn't a hopeful sign though.

CkG

You keep forgetting the very valid reason behind all of the bad news for Bush. It's because there is no good news. This administration is self-destructing.

There is plenty of good news. There are just quite a few folks trying to spin the good news as bad as possible.

I heard CNN earlier announce that hp was hiring 5000 people, but I think they let dave write the script.
HP announcing they are going to hire 5000 people is good news.

HP hiring 5,000 people is not the Bush administration.


Try again.