Why the FoxNews and Bushies are sheeple.

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Skitzer
I'm not being dismissive ...... I'm being a realist. I don't need to defend myself to you or any other child on this forum. Don't stereotype me as a Bush/Neocon supporter, you don't know me. I am so far from that group it isn't funny, keep your stupid finger pointing to yourself. I'm stating a fact. Everyone knows how the Bush Admin works ..... this is no secret and it has been going on for over 7 years. The only thing to do now is take action and move on. Replace this screwed up Administration with one that works and is answerable to the people of this country ....... all of us.
I didn't mean to make light of the topic ..... it is an important one and people should never forget what has transpired during Bush's Presidency. What I am saying is discuss it in a rational manner and not like some pissed off whiner. You diminish your logic and reasoning when you act that way.

Honest question... Considering what GWB&Co have been able to get away with what makes you think the next or any future administration is going to be answerable to the people?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: alchemize
I bet you thought long and hard on how to turn good news on it's ear, techs :laugh:

I think he's just pointing out the hypocrisy. The anti-war side wanted timetables and were blasted for it by the pro-war side.

Oh I'm clear on what he's doing, it's from his diversion 101 textbook. Of course, hypocrisy goes both ways. IIRC, there were a few democrats who voted for allowing this mess to start. But of course, they were bumpkins who were deceived by the genius bush back then...

Hey, I'll admit I was for the war when I was being shown what was alleged to be conclusive evidence that Iraq had WMD's and ties to 9/11. Fast forward a few years and we find out said evidence was hand picked and information against going to war was suppressed. I don't blame the (D)'s who voted for the war. I do blame them for not holding GWB&Co accountable for some of their abuses of power though.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Wth, remembering and voting? So who are you going to vote for? New Neocon AIPAC guy Number 1 or New Neocon AIPAC guy Number 2?

There is no real difference between the 'democratic' choices you have to pick between. Both are committed to pursuing basically the very same policies currently in place...

What!?!?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Robor
Hey, I'll admit I was for the war when I was being shown what was alleged to be conclusive evidence that Iraq had WMD's and ties to 9/11.

Fast forward a few years and we find out said evidence was hand picked and information against going to war was suppressed.

I don't blame the (D)'s who voted for the war.

I do blame them for not holding GWB&Co accountable for some of their abuses of power though.

Tears

Thank you for the honesty :thumbsup:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jonks
Yes, they invaded a country on false premise, fucked up the invasion beyond all recogniztion, put us in record breaking debt, destroyed our reputation in the world, killed over 4000 americans and uncountable thousands of iraqis. Then when those of us vocally disagreed with the spending of our soldiers' lives in this endeavor, and vocally advocated getting our troops out of harms way, then we were called traitors! But they were right. :roll:

They are the biggest collection of fuckups that have ever run this country. I know that's hard for you to accept when you champion something so foolish so adamantly, but it'll be easier on you in the long run.

What the hell does that have to do with whether or not utilizing a timetable withdrawal was or is the correct course of action? Nice fail.

Because they weren't right in the first place? You say fail. I say pwn.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Robor
Because they weren't right in the first place? You say fail. I say pwn.

So you're telling me that two wrongs make a right. Now I understand. 😀

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I would think everyone here would be happy...go figure. IMO...the sooner we get out of there the better. Surely you can find better reasons to criticize Bush

Please. This is a pretty damn good criticism. He was boner-stiff horned up about how awful timetables were. Every republican was circle jerking over that and now they are going for timetables. The timing seems interesting, given an election is coming up against a guy who wants timetables isn't it?

To them, Bush is like a god. If he decided to bomb Mexico tomorrow they would agree. The movie Idiocracy defines these people.

"Go away! Baitin'!"

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Skitzer
I'm not being dismissive ...... I'm being a realist. I don't need to defend myself to you or any other child on this forum. Don't stereotype me as a Bush/Neocon supporter, you don't know me. I am so far from that group it isn't funny, keep your stupid finger pointing to yourself. I'm stating a fact. Everyone knows how the Bush Admin works ..... this is no secret and it has been going on for over 7 years. The only thing to do now is take action and move on. Replace this screwed up Administration with one that works and is answerable to the people of this country ....... all of us.
I didn't mean to make light of the topic ..... it is an important one and people should never forget what has transpired during Bush's Presidency. What I am saying is discuss it in a rational manner and not like some pissed off whiner. You diminish your logic and reasoning when you act that way.

Honest question... Considering what GWB&Co have been able to get away with what makes you think the next or any future administration is going to be answerable to the people?

The answer is most certainly no.

I may not respond kindly to the anger Dems carry towards getting the timetable they wanted 4 years sooner, but I can most certainly agree with the notion that Washington DC serves itself first and foremost.

Which then continues to boggle the mind as to why they always campaign to expand it as if that?s a good thing?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Skitzer
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Who cares ....... we're getting closer to leaving that fucking useless war.

No, more like being caled a "traitor/surrendering to terrorists/cut and run" if you did. Except now. Now it's ok. I smell a Daily Show montage....

You're beating a dead horse ....... this is common knowledge, even most Repubs are aware of the irony. Can you say " bad administration and policies"?
All this is widely known ......... lets move forward and get the hell out of Iraq and remove this fucked up administration and it's President. It does no good to whine about things like this, it makes you look petty and childlike.

I disagree, and I'm still pissed off at being called a terrorist sympathizer and appeaser by my president because I believed in a different course of action than him. The reps didn't offer logical and strategic reasons why I was wrong, they played upon both sides' fear; Americans's fear of another attack, and the dissenters' fear that opposition would result in ostracism. I'm sure the reps would absolutely love it if everyone just "moved on" and didn't examine their words and how they treated those they disagreed with. The reps count on short term memory loss to get elected. Unfortunately it mostly works.

I agree with what you say Jonks and I bolded the above comment from Skitzer because this is the type of dismissive remark that really is at the heart of everything wrong with the Bush/Neocon supporters

Oh Bush was wrong about WMDs and Iraq?? lets move forward....It does no good to whine about things like this, it makes you look petty and childlike

Oh, Bush and Co wanted to spy on Americans? lets move forward....It does no good to whine about things like this, it makes you look petty and childlike

Oh Bush and Co bungled Katrina and 1000 of people got fvcked in the process? lets move forward....It does no good to whine about things like this, it makes you look petty and childlike

Oh, Bush and Co udermined the hiring process for US Attorneys? lets move forward....It does no good to whine about things like this, it makes you look petty and childlike

Oh, Bush and Co dont want to assign a timetable for withdrawal and now they do? lets move forward....It does no good to whine about things like this, it makes you look petty and childlike

You guys can go to hell. The majority of Americans have been "whining" about all the bad sh!t Bush and Co have done and you have always, and will always continue, to dismiss it even though the "whiners" have been pretty much right all along. :|

Dammit, I love you!

*internet high-five*

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Skitzer
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Who cares ....... we're getting closer to leaving that fucking useless war.

No, more like being caled a "traitor/surrendering to terrorists/cut and run" if you did. Except now. Now it's ok. I smell a Daily Show montage....

You're beating a dead horse ....... this is common knowledge, even most Repubs are aware of the irony. Can you say " bad administration and policies"?
All this is widely known ......... lets move forward and get the hell out of Iraq and remove this fucked up administration and it's President. It does no good to whine about things like this, it makes you look petty and childlike.

I disagree, and I'm still pissed off at being called a terrorist sympathizer and appeaser by my president because I believed in a different course of action than him. The reps didn't offer logical and strategic reasons why I was wrong, they played upon both sides' fear; Americans's fear of another attack, and the dissenters' fear that opposition would result in ostracism. I'm sure the reps would absolutely love it if everyone just "moved on" and didn't examine their words and how they treated those they disagreed with. The reps count on short term memory loss to get elected. Unfortunately it mostly works.

I agree with what you say Jonks and I bolded the above comment from Skitzer because this is the type of dismissive remark that really is at the heart of everything wrong with the Bush/Neocon supporters

Oh Bush was wrong about WMDs and Iraq?? lets move forward....It does no good to whine about things like this, it makes you look petty and childlike

Oh, Bush and Co wanted to spy on Americans? lets move forward....It does no good to whine about things like this, it makes you look petty and childlike

Oh Bush and Co bungled Katrina and 1000 of people got fvcked in the process? lets move forward....It does no good to whine about things like this, it makes you look petty and childlike

Oh, Bush and Co udermined the hiring process for US Attorneys? lets move forward....It does no good to whine about things like this, it makes you look petty and childlike

Oh, Bush and Co dont want to assign a timetable for withdrawal and now they do? lets move forward....It does no good to whine about things like this, it makes you look petty and childlike

You guys can go to hell. The majority of Americans have been "whining" about all the bad sh!t Bush and Co have done and you have always, and will always continue, to dismiss it even though the "whiners" have been pretty much right all along. :|

I'm not being dismissive ...... I'm being a realist. I don't need to defend myself to you or any other child on this forum. Don't stereotype me as a Bush/Neocon supporter, you don't know me. I am so far from that group it isn't funny, keep your stupid finger pointing to yourself. I'm stating a fact. Everyone knows how the Bush Admin works ..... this is no secret and it has been going on for over 7 years. The only thing to do now is take action and move on. Replace this screwed up Administration with one that works and is answerable to the people of this country ....... all of us.
I didn't mean to make light of the topic ..... it is an important one and people should never forget what has transpired during Bush's Presidency. What I am saying is discuss it in a rational manner and not like some pissed off whiner. You diminish your logic and reasoning when you act that way.

You mean an potential administration headed by people who tabled a vote on a real energy policy this summer. An poteintail administration who decided to go on vacation to delay any vote to protect its special interest while the working people suffer?

All of these people are corrupt that is why it only works when there is gridlock like the 90s.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Atreus21
OKay wait a second. How would you guys recommend leaving Iraq if not a timetable?

The argument was not against the method, but the timing.

Bullsh*t, it was always the method. If it was a timing issue, Bush et al. would have been debating the timing. They didn't; Bush was against anything to "embolden" terrorists. Clearly the intent was always to remove troops when the Iraq war was "won", but since it's not won yet, why are they discussing a timetable? To motivate? To simply cut and run? This is hypocrisy any way it's sliced.

Because anyway you slice it, we're a hell of a lot closer to a "win" now than we were when Congress was trying to force a timetable.

Well while I think the idea that we're closer to a 'win' is highly debatable, that's not the point.

When Congress was pushing for a timetable, the arguments against it weren't "we're not close enough to success to place a timetable", they were "you are emboldening the terr'rists", "you can't tell the enemy when you will leave", etc. It seems that by doing this we are exactly telling the enemy when we will leave.

I for one am fine with this, and am very glad that we're finally getting ready to exit this idiotic war. It is pretty shockingly dishonest for people who crucified those asking for timetables before to present them so shamelessly now though.

Well, whatever Bush or any of his supporters might've said about it, my reasoning for being against a timetable then, and supporting a timetable (or any means of measured withdrawal) now, is that it is NOW a viable solution. It wasn't before. Nothing about that is hypocritical.

I guaran-damn-tee you a small minority of war-supporters were saying "We can't set a timetable until things improve a little bit", and I guaran-damn-tee virtually none of those people who made such statements said it would happen within a year.

The whole damn thing is hypocritical, and it is damn sad to see this administration slowly erode the reputation, treasure, and lives of Americans while doing it. I almost feel as if Bush is staying in Iraq for spite (though of course he isn't).

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Robor
Because they weren't right in the first place? You say fail. I say pwn.

So you're telling me that two wrongs make a right. Now I understand. 😀

I don't think I made my point clear. I'm saying regardless of who is right about the pullout timetable it doesn't matter because the decision to invade was wrong in the first place.

 

[dphantom]

It seems that the left's posts are simply to simplistic. A timetable 1, 2 or 4 years ago would have been disastrous for Iraq. Sectional fighting, ethnic cleansing even genocide were the norm.

The remarkable success of the surge planned and led by Gen Petraeous has brought us to the point where we can today begin thinking about a planned withdrawal. I see no change in positions, simply a recognition that today is much different than yesterday and so positions held yesterday are no longer valid today.

Smart people recognize that. Others who are so blinded by their hatred of anything Bush related will only see this change as justification for their ill thought out and ill advised position of years past.

With the securing of the last AQI areas in and around Mosul complete, and additional Iraqi divisions gaining combat experience, the situation today is much different than even 6 months ago. And still, the proposed framework for a withdrawal provides a mechanism for US combat forces to remain if the situation changes for the worse. If it does not and the ground situation reamins as it is or continues to improve, then there is no need for US combat forces as Iraqi's are and have proved themselves capable, TODAY, of handling the threat from AQI and sectarian militias.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Robor
I don't think I made my point clear. I'm saying regardless of who is right about the pullout timetable it doesn't matter because the decision to invade was wrong in the first place.

In other words, you can't be wrong because someone else was wrong first. :roll:

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: dphantom
It seems that the left's posts are simply to simplistic. A timetable 1, 2 or 4 years ago would have been disastrous for Iraq. Sectional fighting, ethnic cleansing even genocide were the norm.

The remarkable success of the surge planned and led by Gen Petraeous has brought us to the point where we can today begin thinking about a planned withdrawal. I see no change in positions, simply a recognition that today is much different than yesterday and so positions held yesterday are no longer valid today.

Smart people recognize that. Others who are so blinded by their hatred of anything Bush related will only see this change as justification for their ill thought out and ill advised position of years past.

With the securing of the last AQI areas in and around Mosul complete, and additional Iraqi divisions gaining combat experience, the situation today is much different than even 6 months ago. And still, the proposed framework for a withdrawal provides a mechanism for US combat forces to remain if the situation changes for the worse. If it does not and the ground situation reamins as it is or continues to improve, then there is no need for US combat forces as Iraqi's are and have proved themselves capable, TODAY, of handling the threat from AQI and sectarian militias.

what about a request for a time table 40-50 days ago? When even McCain was against the idea of "emboldening our enemies?" I guess ALOT has changed since then right??? I guess our enemies cared back then but they dont care today...those terrrist are finicky like that!

You aren't saying anything that hasn't already been said, just more of the same apologies. Smart people recognize that.

What about in all the years past when candidates such as Kerry and Gore and Clinton and now Obama were chastized for recognizing that "today is much different than yesterday and so positions held yesterday are no longer valid today." ????

Again, you are not saying anything that hasn't already been said before, only now I guess its your turn to defend people for "flip flopping" enjoy!

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: dphantom
It seems that the left's posts are simply to simplistic. A timetable 1, 2 or 4 years ago would have been disastrous for Iraq. Sectional fighting, ethnic cleansing even genocide were the norm.

The remarkable success of the surge planned and led by Gen Petraeous has brought us to the point where we can today begin thinking about a planned withdrawal. I see no change in positions, simply a recognition that today is much different than yesterday and so positions held yesterday are no longer valid today.

Smart people recognize that. Others who are so blinded by their hatred of anything Bush related will only see this change as justification for their ill thought out and ill advised position of years past.

With the securing of the last AQI areas in and around Mosul complete, and additional Iraqi divisions gaining combat experience, the situation today is much different than even 6 months ago. And still, the proposed framework for a withdrawal provides a mechanism for US combat forces to remain if the situation changes for the worse. If it does not and the ground situation reamins as it is or continues to improve, then there is no need for US combat forces as Iraqi's are and have proved themselves capable, TODAY, of handling the threat from AQI and sectarian militias.

what about a request for a time table 40-50 days ago? When even McCain was against the idea of "emboldening our enemies?" I guess ALOT has changed since then right??? I guess our enemies cared back then but they dont care today...those terrrist are finicky like that!

You aren't saying anything that hasn't already been said, just more of the same apologies. Smart people recognize that.

What about in all the years past when candidates such as Kerry and Gore and Clinton and now Obama were chastized for recognizing that "today is much different than yesterday and so positions held yesterday are no longer valid today." ????

Again, you are not saying anything that hasn't already been said before, only now I guess its your turn to defend people for "flip flopping" enjoy!

I don't know about Kerry, Gore or Clinton. Don't think they are part of the OP posting. I was talking only to the OP itself.

I think a lot has changed on the last 2-3 months. Operations in Mosul and Basra were successfully completed only recently and were still very much questionable 3 months ago. Diyaniyah is still a problem but it appears based on Iraqi orbat they are taking the lead there.

"The plan for the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) to take over Iraq security is directly linked to the US plan to draw down forces and as briefed by General Petraeus in September 2007. For military planners, there are natural decision points for when to reduce forces based on the rotation schedule of US forces. These semi-annual decision points are September for drawdowns to be completed by January, and March for drawdowns to be completed by July. The drawdown schedule is not a hard and fast schedule. At each of these points the option to delay exists if the situation on the ground warrants it.

The decision to draw down forces will be made by September 2008 so that the drawdown can be completed by January 2009. There are already signs the US and Iraq are preparing for this drawdown. The Iraqi Army is beginning to absorb at least two Kurdish Divisions. The 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division in south Baghdad is already planning to turn over its battle space to the newly forming 17th Commando Division. The Marines in Anbar are looking at reducing to a Marine Expeditionary Brigade. The 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division is already preparing for Afghanistan instead of the originally announced Iraq deployment.

These reductions are being facilitated by the expanding the Iraqi Army and Iraqi National Police (INP). The Iraqi Army, which consisted of 10 divisions organized into 36 brigades in 2006, now consists of 16 divisions with 60 brigades and is still expanding. One-third of the current Iraqi Army did not exist two years ago."

Reference

Please note the above. This is what is allowing us to look at more concrete timetables for withdrawal STILL predicated on the assumption that Iraq can continue to handle its security. All bets are off if Mahdi or other militia groups attempt to return to the factional fighting of the past.

What I don't believe you or other leftists understand is just how fast military conditions can change and how quickly commanders need to adjust tactics and operations to deal with the changes. No one could have predicted the overwhelming success of the surge. In fact, many of those who are now complainign about this so called flip-flop over withdrawal were teh very ones adamantly predicting the surges complete failure.

Well, it appears they were wrong then and are just as wrong now. We make decisions based on best current information with an eye to past events. We can quibble over 40-50 days or 3-4 months. The bottom line is that until very recently, any discussion of set in stone withdrawal dates was inappropriate. Even today, there is nothing set in stone nor will there ever be.

I make no apologies for Bush's idiotic management of the Iraq war. I've said it over and over in many previous posts. But the current status in Iraq requires a change in how we look at our long-term stay. And the key is and always has been the stand up of Iraqi forces to manage their own internal security. And that as much as the surge is the reason why today's Iraq is finally, after years of unbelieveable incompetency, finally looking like the Iraqi's will have a safe, secure country of their own for the first time in many years.