"We stay in fight," says Bush (while being awarded Dumbshit of the Decade Award)

[Stranger On A Train]

Bush vows to "stay in the fight until we have achieved the victory our brave troops have fought for. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/19/iraq.bush/index.html)"

Er, what victory, George? How do we define "won" and when do we get to go home? Seeing as we're a year-and-a-half passed "Mission Accomplished", what, the fuck, exactly is it we're aspiring to accomplish? The Iraqis have their constitution and their fledgling, delicate, likely-to-come-apart-at-high-speeds democracy. Saddam Hussein has been restricted to complete domination of his jail cell (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30455). There are no Weapons of Mass Destruction in evidence, and indeed, all available data point to the conclusion that Hussein was largely bluffing when he played his hand of 7 Card Stud with weapons inspectors. Similarly, there is no credible evidence that Hussein did anything more to support Al-Queda other than provide right-of-way; not financial, logistical, or military support that would justify invasion and ongoing occupation.

We know that your intellectual and academic attainments are of a measure best quantified in fractional units, and that by dint of your family connections and conveniently capricous patriotism you managed to miss out on the last major, long-term military adventure our nation embarked on, but good-fucking-Christ could you at least crack open a high school history text and see what happened last time we unilaterally committed to an armed engagement halfway around the globe without any well-defined goals or strategy? The single most important lesson that military and political commanders got out of Vietnam is to have an exit strategy. Fuck, even your father understood that in the last Desert Brawl; go in, accomplish said mission, get the fuck out, and let that part of the world settle their own problems. Remaining in place, indefinitely, is just going to expose our troops and innocent civilians to more insurgent bombing; and as long as we are in place and effectively occupying (whether baldly so or at the behest of the goverment we installed) there will be no lack of fundamentalist Muslims willing to detonate themselves in order to rid their country of Crusaders.

And as an aside, please the fuck would you stop giving speeches and press briefings in a bomber jacket. You don't look cool, or tough, or authoritative. You aren't General Douglas MacArthur. You aren't Jack Ryan. You aren't Dirk Pitt. You're a half-wit former coked-up alcoholic frat boy who has attained the rank of chief exec by name recognition, family connections, and blatant exploitation of peoples' fears and illusions. The least you can do is wear a Og-damned suit and try to look presentable.

Oh, and thanks for totally fucking up the space program, too. The waves of people who are being laid off at JPL right now because decade-long programs are arbitrarily being cut to pay for this dim-bulb, underfunded bullshit program to go to Mars really appreciate your sudden interest in science, but wish that you'd learn even but the slightest bit of information before you start making radical policy changes.

You stupid shit.

Stranger

[GIGObuster]

``So long as I am commander-in-chief, our strategy in Iraq will be driven by the sober judgment of our military commanders on the ground,''

Problem is, the Republican now are accusing the sober judgment of military men of being treasonous or cowardly.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.

The proposal comes as tension grows in both Washington and Baghdad following a call by a senior House Democrat to bring U.S. troops home and the deaths of scores of people by suicide bombers in two Iraqi cities.

We really need to take the power away from this bogus POTUS.

[GIGObuster]

I think Joshua Marshall hits the nail on the head:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
I was just reading over a news account of the president's speech in South Korea in which he said "We will stay in the fight until we have achieved the ... victory that our brave troops have fought for." In the speech, he describes the war as being fought in theaters in Beslan, Bali, Riyadh, Madrid, Iraq -- virtually every place in the world over the last four years where any Muslim fundamentalists have blown anything up.

The real problem though -- and this becomes clear listening to the president, and increasingly from his supporters -- is that the president no longer has any coherent idea of what the war he's fighting amounts to or what victory would look like.

He says we'll fight it out to victory or that "as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." But it's been a really long time since I've heard any coherent plan for what we're trying to do besides slogans like this.

If we're honest I think what the president is saying is this: We're going to stay in Iraq until the place calms down and we can leave with a sense that we've accomplished something.

...

So at the moment, there's not even a reasoned fight between staying in and getting out. Getting out is the only coherent strategy or approach on the table. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. But it is clear and defineable. On the other hand, there is the president, who hasn't put forward any concrete description of what our goals are or any coherent (let alone, a good plan) plan for accomplishing them. Under President Bush's leadership, in Iraq, we've become the national embodiment of the eternal Mr. Micawber, always waiting "for something to turn up."

[GIGObuster]

Q: What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?

A: George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War.


Sorry for the triple post, but this pit would not be complete without the opinion of Dubya regarding an exit strategy:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -- Bush criticizing President Clinton on not setting a timetable for troops in Kosovo, 4/9/99

"I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." -- 6/5/99

And from the presidential debate of 2000:

"I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious." -- 10/12/00.

[Marley23]

"Whatever we're doing, for whatever reason and however we're doing it, it's imperative we keep doing it and I will not hear any suggestion to the contrary."

[elucidator]

What else has he got? He has to hope for a miracle. Even a fragile state tottering on the edge of civil war will do, he can skeedaddle and say "Well, we gave them a thriving democracy and they screwed it up!"

What worries me most is the increasing likelihood of our being seen as taking sides in a sectarian religious stuggle between Sunni and Shia. Wherein the Shia are perfectly content to let us bleed and die for thier cause, without despising us any the less for it, and the Sunni hating our guts with a fury that burns, etc.

[soulmurk]

"Whatever we're doing, for whatever reason and however we're doing it, it's imperative we keep doing it and I will not hear any suggestion to the contrary."

I very specifically vaguely agree with that; you're a patriot and a good American. Unless it would hurt public opinion of me to do so, in which case I very specifically vaguely disagree and you're a treasonous bastard and a Commie who hates freedom and puppies.

[yojimbo]

I find the whole US political scene quite disheartening to tell you the truth.

Living in Ireland I have access to all of Britain’s media, TV, radio and newspapers. This debate is happening over there as well but it's without all this shallow, button pushing, emotional twaddle. Blair and Co. give reasons why they must stay. People who disagree, and there are many, get met with debate not scorn. A situation like the one with Murtha just wouldn't happen.

I can understand it from politicians and their shills but even some regular people I see on TV and read here seem to have so much invested into their side(both sides do this BTW) that they are just blind to the other side and will view them as not opponents but liars at best and traitors at worst.

Don't get me wrong I've read and seen on US TV(I also get CNN, CNBC and to a lesser degree FOX) a lot of solid thinking debate as well but the roar from the side of shallow partisan drivel is almost deafening.

Bush would be a joke if this wasn't just so damn serious. I hope that the damage that this current Admin(and the media) has by done to America can be fixed by the next Admin whatever side they may be but I think that will be a very hard job. They will inherit a completely fractured nation, large debts and a ongoing "war" without goals or reason.

As to the war both Iraq and the allies are fucked in the short-mid term. The allies are in a lose/lose situation. A situation mostly of their own making. Iraq is a rampaging bull now and all they can do is try to hang on or let go. Both options have their own risks and dangers.

FUBAR.

[Scissorjack]

"Whatever we're doing, for whatever reason and however we're doing it, it's imperative we keep doing it and I will not hear any suggestion to the contrary."

Ah, the "something must be done" syllogism. Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do this.

[Martin Hyde]

Bush vows to "stay in the fight until we have achieved the victory our brave troops have fought for. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/19/iraq.bush/index.html)"

So is the "Dumbshit of the Decade Award" an official Award? What organization gave it out? I find your ideas interesting, do you perhaps run an independent newsletter I could subscribe to?

Er, what victory, George? How do we define "won" and when do we get to go home? Seeing as we're a year-and-a-half passed "Mission Accomplished", what, the fuck, exactly is it we're aspiring to accomplish?

Establish a stable government in Iraq. I know you have no problem labelling Bush an idiot, but it certainly takes a "special" individual to not understand something so specific.

The Iraqis have their constitution and their fledgling, delicate, likely-to-come-apart-at-high-speeds democracy.

You seem almost happy about this. Surely you wouldn't *want* this to happen just so the Republicans and Bush get embarassed? What kind of monster would wish that on the Iraqi people just so his party can make political hay?

You know most people didn't expect American democracy to work out that well, either. And it didn't for awhile, it took about 15 years. I think some of us are being a bit unrealistic about what it takes to make democracy works. We're not even at year 5 yet, and it's going to be year 10 before things are close to where they need to be.

Saddam Hussein has been restricted to complete domination of his jail cell (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30455). There are no Weapons of Mass Destruction in evidence, and indeed, all available data point to the conclusion that Hussein was largely bluffing when he played his hand of 7 Card Stud with weapons inspectors.

Well, who's fault is it he was bluffing? He could have shown his cards at any time.

Similarly, there is no credible evidence that Hussein did anything more to support Al-Queda other than provide right-of-way; not financial, logistical, or military support that would justify invasion and ongoing occupation.

Combined with his many other actions I'd say providing right-of-way is a good part of the overall justification we had to invade.

We know that your intellectual and academic attainments are of a measure best quantified in fractional units, and that by dint of your family connections and conveniently capricous patriotism you managed to miss out on the last major, long-term military adventure our nation embarked on, but good-fucking-Christ could you at least crack open a high school history text and see what happened last time we unilaterally committed to an armed engagement halfway around the globe without any well-defined goals or strategy? The single most important lesson that military and political commanders got out of Vietnam is to have an exit strategy.

Wow, live in the past much?

In Vietnam we were trying to prop up the government of South Vietnam, fight an active insurgency, and fight off a generalized invasion from the North while maintaining a policy that specifically forbade us from doing anything to crush the North's ability to supply the Southern insurgency.

That's a little bit of a different situation than what we have in Iraq.

As it is, in Iraq we don't need an exit strategy until Iraq has stabilized, so there's really nothing more to talk about. We'll start bringing home the troops when Iraq can survive without the training wheels. Anything before that and we're just screwing the Iraqi people.

Fuck, even your father understood that in the last Desert Brawl; go in, accomplish said mission, get the fuck out, and let that part of the world settle their own problems. Remaining in place, indefinitely, is just going to expose our troops and innocent civilians to more insurgent bombing; and as long as we are in place and effectively occupying (whether baldly so or at the behest of the goverment we installed) there will be no lack of fundamentalist Muslims willing to detonate themselves in order to rid their country of Crusaders.

Yeah, and that worked out so well because Saddam didn't you know, kill tons of his own civilians right after Gulf War I because they thought the U.S. would help them overthrow the man who made them live in hell for the last 20 years.

And what's the rest of your rant, "isolationism?" Yeah, American isolationism was always good for the rest of the world.

And as an aside, please the fuck would you stop giving speeches and press briefings in a bomber jacket. You don't look cool, or tough, or authoritative. You aren't General Douglas MacArthur. You aren't Jack Ryan. You aren't Dirk Pitt. You're a half-wit former coked-up alcoholic frat boy who has attained the rank of chief exec by name recognition, family connections, and blatant exploitation of peoples' fears and illusions. The least you can do is wear a Og-damned suit and try to look presentable.

I didn't realize the President's fashion was cause for such animosity. You may need to calm down a little bit before you choke on all the foam spewing out of your mouth.

Oh, and thanks for totally fucking up the space program, too. The waves of people who are being laid off at JPL right now because decade-long programs are arbitrarily being cut to pay for this dim-bulb, underfunded bullshit program to go to Mars really appreciate your sudden interest in science, but wish that you'd learn even but the slightest bit of information before you start making radical policy changes.

Space exploration is a vast watse of resources. The only thing society has to gain from space is in the field of near-earth space ventures. Dreams of colonizing space are crack-pot ideas that any real scientist will explain away as an impossibility.

[Stranger On A Train]

You seem almost happy about this. Surely you wouldn't *want* this to happen just so the Republicans and Bush get embarassed? What kind of monster would wish that on the Iraqi people just so his party can make political hay?Uh, yeah. I'm a monster. So, when did you stop beating your wife, again?

As it is, in Iraq we don't need an exit strategy until Iraq has stabilized, so there's really nothing more to talk about.Any military excursion always requires an exit strategy, i.e. definition of goals, metrics of quantifying success, and a strategic and logistical plan for extraction. That's called "thinking through the problem," something this Administration hasn't done with any program since Jan 20th, 2001.


I didn't realize the President's fashion was cause for such animosity. You may need to calm down a little bit before you choke on all the foam spewing out of your mouth.It's a pathetically transparent attempt to appeal to the increasingly dwindling minority of people who confuse Bush's attempt to look "tough" or "military" with "remotely competent."


Space exploration is a vast watse of resources. The only thing society has to gain from space is in the field of near-earth space ventures.Just :rolleyes:.

Stranger

[elucidator]

So what happened to "Mars, my little bitches! Mars!"?

[George Kaplin]

Establish a stable government in Iraq. I know you have no problem labelling Bush an idiot, but it certainly takes a "special" individual to not understand something so specific.


The problem is that this is not a specific mission statement. The successful implementation of democracy in Iraq can only be attained by overcoming a whole slew of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. We need to crush an insurgency that hides in the shadows, doesn't fear death, and for which every American casualty is a propaganda coup. We need to pump billions of dollars into Iraq's infrastructure. We need to ensure that the new Iraqi government is free from corruption and impregnable to outside influence. We need to do a hell of a lot, frankly, and from where I'm sitting we're not really making any headway. Merely stating, as Bush has, that our mission is to 'Establish a stable government in Iraq' is to oversimplify to the point of absurdity.

If the manager of a soccer team, when asked to give his strategy for winning the World Cup, simply replied 'Score goals and win games', you could be forgiven for thinking him a pretty lousy manager.

[Frostillicus]

Seeing as we're a year-and-a-half passed "Mission Accomplished", what, the fuck, exactly is it we're aspiring to accomplish?

I hate to depress you even more than you already seem to be, but President Codpiece's "mission-accomplished" stunt took place on May 1, 2003, which is over 2 1/2 years ago. :(

[AskNott]

Bush says we're not bringing the troops home until "the mission is complete." That means "until Halliburton has made enough money." And not a moment sooner.

[Denis]

I'm convinced Bush and his fellow travellers take their advice on handling people from the pointy-haired boss in "Dilbert."

As deeply disturbing and destructive as this is, it is still a cosmic class joke.

[lonesome loser]

Can't this man see that things are getting worse? Baghdad still doesn't have electricity all of the time after three years. Most of the water is not potable. after three years of our occupation.

Our troops are nothing but targets, civilians die every day and it appears there is nothing we can do to stop it.

Chaos reigns. There can be no victory.

The man is in way over his head.

It won't be over until everyone is dead.

That's it!

That's his exit strategy.

[HPL]

It won't be over until everyone is dead.

That's it!

That's his exit strategy.

Reminds me of WW1.

[SteveG1]

he describes the war as being fought in theaters in Beslan, Bali, Riyadh, Madrid, Iraq -- virtually every place in the world over the last four years where any Muslim fundamentalists have blown anything up.

The real problem though -- and this becomes clear listening to the president, and increasingly from his supporters -- is that the president no longer has any coherent idea of what the war he's fighting amounts to or what victory would look like.

He says we'll fight it out to victory or that "as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." But it's been a really long time since I've heard any coherent plan for what we're trying to do besides slogans like this.

If we're honest I think what the president is saying is this: We're going to stay in Iraq until the place calms down and we can leave with a sense that we've accomplished something.
Is it just me, or do these "Bushisms" sound a bit too much like the ramblings of a madman???

[SteveG1]

"Whatever we're doing, for whatever reason and however we're doing it, it's imperative we keep doing it and I will not hear any suggestion to the contrary."
Nod nod. In short, he is saying Keep doing it even though it's a total disaster.

[SteveG1]

I find the whole US political scene quite disheartening to tell you the truth. ...

Living in Ireland I have access to all of Britain’s media, TV, radio and newspapers.

Don't get me wrong I've read and seen on US TV(I also get CNN, CNBC and to a lesser degree FOX) a lot of solid thinking debate as well but the roar from the side of shallow partisan drivel is almost deafening.

Bush would be a joke if this wasn't just so damn serious. ... FUBAR.
I'm guessing you are grateful to be where you are right now, and I don't blame you one bit. You nailed the partisan screaming perfectly. Party before country. Agenda before country. Drag the whole place down the drain, or be labeled a craven traitor. Sick, isn't it?

[SteveG1]

I didn't realize the President's fashion was cause for such animosity. You may need to calm down a little bit before you choke on all the foam spewing out of your mouth.

It's a pathetically transparent attempt to appeal to the increasingly dwindling minority of people who confuse Bush's attempt to look "tough" or "military" with "remotely competent."
He does not look tough, he looks ridiculous like a two year old wearing daddy's fedora and overcoat. He did not earn the right to wear those uniforms, in my book. In doing so and palying the poser, he insults all those who have worn a uniform. In callously using up the military and doing his best curtailing their benefits (VA anyone?) while letting his corporate buddies clean up (Halliburton and KBR), and while making soldiers guard these vultures, he sullies any uniform he puts on. He should be ashamed of himself.

[Der Trihs]

Is it just me, or do these "Bushisms" sound a bit too much like the ramblings of a madman???No, it's not just you. When you get right down to it, he effectively is insane, because of the way he has always isolated himself from reality. It may be due to the solid shell of toadies, true believers and puppetmasters he has around him, instead of a brain disorder, but he is quite detached from the real world.

Personally, I think he is really insane as well as effectively insane, but in practical terms it doesn't matter.

[Stranger On A Train]

I hate to depress you even more than you already seem to be, but President Codpiece's "mission-accomplished" stunt took place on May 1, 2003, which is over 2 1/2 years ago. :(I stand corrected.

And how about this for your FDA daily recommended dose of irony; I work for one of those defense contractors who turns your hard-earned tax dollars into the finest top secret flying saucer zap-it-outta-the-sky technology that never seems to work like Tom Clancy says it does. Back in '04, we were encouraged--to the point of instructed--to vote for Bush out of fears that the leading brand would slash defense budgets. Now that we're pouring a steady stream of cash into a hole in the desert, guess what they're doing to development budgets?

As Nelson would say, "Ha ha!"

'Cept now I have to go find another job. :eek: :dubious: :( :cool: :confused: :smack: :p

Stranger

[New Iskander]

Good rant: factual and hard-hitting. However,

You're a half-wit former coked-up alcoholic frat boy who has attained the rank of chief exec by name recognition, family connections, and blatant exploitation of peoples' fears and illusions....also because Gore blew it and Kerry wasn't good enough.
Any military excursion always requires an exit strategy, i.e. definition of goals, metrics of quantifying success, and a strategic and logistical plan for extraction. That doesn't apply to WWII, where the motto was, "Victory by any means necessary".

Besides, do you really believe they don't have back-up plan for withdrawal? What's he supposed to say, "My fellow Americans, relax, we leave anytime we feel like it"?

[Scissorjack]

That doesn't apply to WWII, where the motto was, "Victory by any means necessary".

Bad analogy. Japan attacked the US first, and if Germany had been permitted to over-run Europe they could have posed a genuine threat to the US: in any case, all moral arguments set aside, the US couldn't permit all of Europe to be turned into the armed camp of an expansionist loony.

The Iraqis, on the other hand, had WMD's. Somewhere. That they could have used. We're looking hard, and they're around here. And they harboured terrorists. And Saddam was a bastard. Still looking for those WMD's...looking... Wait, what's that over there? Look! Freedom And Democracy!

Besides, do you really believe they don't have back-up plan for withdrawal?

Yes. Here's where your WWII analogy is apt: the Bush administration talked themselves into believing that they would be greeted like GI's liberating France, with laughing children strewing rose petals in front of their jeeps. Shoot a few hard-liners, maybe, establish a compliant government, awards his mates a few fat oil and construction contracts, and Bob's yer uncle.

[Der Trihs]

Besides, do you really believe they don't have back-up plan for withdrawal? What's he supposed to say, "My fellow Americans, relax, we leave anytime we feel like it"?I doubt Bush and friends have any intention of ever withdrawing, even now. Why else build those bases ?

[Marley23]

Besides, do you really believe they don't have back-up plan for withdrawal?
A back-up plan? You're shitting me. You need TWO plans for one to be a back-up, and I'm not convinced they have ONE.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

...also because Gore blew it and Kerry wasn't good enough.

You forgot "Clinton got a blow job". Get with plan already. :wally

[HPL]

Besides, do you really believe they don't have back-up plan for withdrawal?

Doesn't that require a plan first?

As far as I can tell, the Bush Plan for Iraq seems to be.

1.)Invade Iraq
2.)??????
3.)Democracy in Iraq!

Maybe the new plan is........

1.)Stay the Course
2.)??????
3.)Democracy in Iraq!


(fixed coding. -- Uke)

[Stranger On A Train]

...also because Gore blew it and Kerry wasn't good enough.Well, that's the shameful truth; as incompetent as Bush is, he still has greater appeal than the competition. I can't say I had much stomach for Gore. Kerry lost himself by not responding forcefully to offensively absurd claims about his service and patriotism; if he'd used a few of the choice words that his wife offered up to critics, he might have been far better for it.


That doesn't apply to WWII, where the motto was, "Victory by any means necessary".Well, yes and no. Roosevelt continually entertained the notion that we wouldn' t be able to defeat the Germans, and had the Operation Overload landings failed it would have entailed a permanent stalemate. And as far as rebuilding and reestablishing goverments in post-war Europe there were many discussions; the Yalta Conference was primarily concerned with the division of responsibility in post-war Europe. In comparison, it has been clear from the word go that the current Administration has had only the vaguest plans for reconstruction, establishment of a goverment, monetary system, protection of infrastructure, and appearently no consideration for the amount of continual resistance we have observed. Bush might have been able to appreciate this a little better if he'd actually, you know, served in that Southeast Asian conflict he went to great pains to avoid, or even stayed awake in history class.


Besides, do you really believe they don't have back-up plan for withdrawal? What's he supposed to say, "My fellow Americans, relax, we leave anytime we feel like it"?I can't see that they have much of a primary plan, much less a back-up, and the rejection and probably censure of Pentagon officials who are preparing for the eventuality of withdrawl indicates a head-in-sand attitude that seeks to reject the possibility.

This wouldn't be half as irritating if this indefinite occupation had been the plan all along--as it should have been with regard to the decision to engage in this endeavor--but the whole effort started with claims that we'd be in and out before Jack Robinson could take a breath. Remember Rummy and his "lightning invasion" that eschewed logistics and supply lines (causing experienced military commanders to shake their heads) and promising that we'd be in and out in "a month". This is the talk of a guy who lives in an environment defined by Tom Clancy novels.

And given the fact that there was no immediate and compelling reason to engage in war to begin with--despite claims, Iraq presented no immediate and persistant danger to the US, our allies, or even the bordering nations--thre's really no excuse for not having a plan and contingencies. And if we sincerelly believed that Iraq had effective battlefield chemical and biological weapons, does it really make sense to send troops in and have them exposed in any but the most dire of circumstances, of which this was not.

I'm not intrinsically anti-Bush; if he'd just bumbled along for eight years in a marginally competent fashion like his predecessor, snorting coke and getting the occasional blowjob from an intern, I'd be fairly indifferent. But watching the progression of this war in combination with the vacilliation and rationalization, plus the McCarthy-esque veiled threats and accusations ("If you're not with us, you're against us") is enough to make even the most politicallly apathetic of citizens ("Hi, Mom!") disgusted and revolted. If you want to fleece the public treasury, meh...it's become the norm. But don't treat me like I'm some idiot that can't figure out what you're up to. It irritated me about Clinton, but he wasn't engaging us in massive overseas military adventurism. It positively angers me with Bush and Co.

There's this scene in the documentary The Fog of War (http://imdb.com/title/tt0317910/), where Morris plays a tape of a phone conversation of Robert McNamara trying to advise Johnson on Vietnam. "We need an exit strategy...a way to get out," he attempts to plead, in between Johnson's heedless complaints that McNamara and Kennedy had discussed plans for extraction. "I thought it was bad, psychologically, to talk about getting out of there," he railroads over McNamara's attempts to speak. We're not privy to Bush's discussions with advisors, but we can see the same results, the same mistakes, the same resignation of good advisors (Colin Powell) to be replaced by Yes Men.

*sigh* Oh, the irony...the goggles do nothing.

Stranger

[Voyager]

Besides, do you really believe they don't have back-up plan for withdrawal? What's he supposed to say, "My fellow Americans, relax, we leave anytime we feel like it"?
They certainly didn't have a backup plan when the rose throwing thing didn't work out. Besides, anyone who would even admit there was a possibility that we'd "cut and run" would get fired.

Remember how they totally ignored the State Department experts on nation building.

[New Iskander]

I think there certainly will be a significant reduction of troops in Iraq next year. Funny sounds coming out of DC indicate struggle who's going to take most credit for it. There will be another significant troops reduction in 2008. 50-60,000 contingent probably will remain in Iraq for many years, no matter who's the Prez.

[Stranger On A Train]

I think there certainly will be a significant reduction of troops in Iraq next year. Funny sounds coming out of DC indicate struggle who's going to take most credit for it. There will be another significant troops reduction in 2008. 50-60,000 contingent probably will remain in Iraq for many years, no matter who's the Prez.That'd be my guess as well. Another South Korea with a permanent, "non-aggressive" presence. The complicating factor is that there is no defined border, no barrier from insurgence and aggression. At this point, though, it would be at least as irresponsible to talk about complete abandonment as it was to engage in this disaster in the first place. The best we can do is to mitigate the worst and hope that the situation doesn't unravel like a ball of yarn in the clutches of a kitten.

Stranger

[crowmanyclouds]

You know most people didn't expect American democracy to work out that well, either. And it didn't for awhile, it took about 15 years. I think some of us are being a bit unrealistic about what it takes to make democracy works. We're not even at year 5 yet, and it's going to be year 10 before things are close to where they need to be.Great, so we might get to stay even longer!...Yeah, and that worked out so well because Saddam didn't you know, kill tons of his own civilians right after Gulf War I...And just what did we do to stop him?...because they thought the U.S. would help them overthrow the man who made them live in hell for the last 20 years...Yeah 'cause we were sooo tough on him when gassed the Kurds and the Iranians and...oh yeah, that's right, we didn't give a single shit about that, of course it was great to have an ace in the hole when when we WANTED to play it!

[Marley23]

I think there certainly will be a significant reduction of troops in Iraq next year. Funny sounds coming out of DC indicate struggle who's going to take most credit for it. There will be another significant troops reduction in 2008.
2006 and 2008? Those are election years! What a funny coincidence. I'm sure this will be because there have been major milestones, not a shameless "please don't hate us, it's working" ploy.

[SteveG1]

2006 and 2008? Those are election years! What a funny coincidence. I'm sure this will be because there have been major milestones, not a shameless "please don't hate us, it's working" ploy.
Yeah right. I see this the same way. Any slim thread that can be spun as a "success" wil be proclaimed by the Republicans as a rousing victory - Headline screams "Only 5000 killed today, less than the of 4900 yesterday! Peace is at hand!".
Any failures or setbacks will be blamed on the usual suspects - liberals, Democrats, freedom haters, America haters, and the new improved catchphrases such as "craven givers of aid and comfor to the enemy". Plus, plenty of personal attacks and accusations, and more "trust me". Timing these supposed milestones with election years is so transparent as to be an insult to our intelligence.

[QuickSilver]

Nod nod. In short, he is saying Keep doing it even though it's a total disaster.

Yep. Jesus is coming. Look busy.

[SteveG1]

Yep. Jesus is coming. Look busy.
Didn't he say something about going out as a lamb and coming back as a lion?

It would get ugly, and surprise a lot of people. Borrowing from their own imagery of an avenging Jesus, wading in blood and destroying the wicked, picture this:
He comes back with a huge Conan type sword, while roaring "You did what in my name?!?!"

[Merijeek]

My mission is to succeed.

I know know my mission is over when I have succeeded.

Why can't you liberals understand this?

-Joe, duh

[SteveG1]

My mission is to succeed.

I know know my mission is over when I have succeeded.

Why can't you liberals understand this?

-Joe, duh
To which the counter argument is


It ain't over 'til it's over.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

To which the counter argument is


It ain't over 'til it's over. Well, look, can't we find the fat lady and persuade her to sing?

[wolf_meister]

Stranger On A Train
Lately, I haven't been posting to the SDMB as often as I used to, but I couldn't resist joining a "Dubya-Bashing" thread. Anyway, Stranger, that was a well-conceived and well-expressed essay on the Commandable In Chief. Keep up the good work. :D

[Little Nemo]

I wrote a different post, making fun of Bush's statements. But I didn't have the heart to post it. American soldiers are dying. And a lot more are going to be sacrificed before George Bush will be willing to stop and admit he may have made a mistake. Assuming he ever reaches that point - he's already absorbed several thousand dead and it doesn't seem to have had any effect on him. It isn't a joking situation - his incompetence is killing people.

[Princhester]

As it is, in Iraq we don't need an exit strategy until Iraq has stabilized, so there's really nothing more to talk about.

"We're not going to stop twisting the knife and take it out of his guts till he stops bleeding".

[Blackclaw]

Establish a stable government in Iraq. I know you have no problem labelling Bush an idiot, but it certainly takes a "special" individual to not understand something so specific.

But that is not very specific. What has to happen in Iraq for the situation to be defined as "stable"? Is there a certain number of Iraqi troops that have to be trained? Is there a certain number of insurgency attacks a day that has to be reduced to? A certain number of elections that have to take place?

If we are waiting for all violence to cease that simply isn't going to happen as long as US troops are present. And the violence probably won't cease after US troops leave until the Sunnis either accept that they no longer run the country (which could take decades) or regain control of it.

So just what is the measure by which the US will decide when it is time to leave? It feels as if we have no means by which to make this decision beyond how nervous the Republicans get come election time.

[robertliguori]

As it is, in Iraq we don't need an exit strategy until Iraq has stabilized, so there's really nothing more to talk about.


Dead is stable. I'm just sayin'.

[plnnr]

We have no means by which to make this decision beyond how nervous the Republicans get come election time.

Ladies and gentlemen, no more phone calls please...we have a winner.

[Revtim]

Well, look, can't we find the fat lady and persuade her to sing?Cheney is trying to make it legal for the CIA to torture her, so we'll see.

[ArrMatey!]

I wrote a different post, making fun of Bush's statements. But I didn't have the heart to post it. American soldiers are dying. And a lot more are going to be sacrificed before George Bush will be willing to stop and admit he may have made a mistake. Assuming he ever reaches that point - he's already absorbed several thousand dead and it doesn't seem to have had any effect on him. It isn't a joking situation - his incompetence is killing people.

Can't. That's a problem as I see it. Remember, the last election came down to the words 'Flip flopping'. It made changing your mind the worst political 'sin' you can make. Going back on what you said, even if it's because of new evidence or whatever.
It's called changing your mind. But our politicians have made that a bad, bad thing. Now we must stay the course, no matter how silly, pointless, or life-sacrificing it may be.

[magellan01]

You forgot "Clinton got a blow job". Get with plan already. :wally

Why do people keep bringing this up? Sex is a private matter. Now a President perjuring himself in a sexual harrassment lawsuit that has been brought against him is the public's business. Unless you think that sexual harrassment is not or should not be a crime.

[elucidator]

What a fascinating line of inquiry! We really should discuss this at length. Elsewhere. At some other time. That isn't here. Or now.

[Grelby]

The best we can do is to mitigate the worst and hope that the situation doesn't unravel like a ball of yarn in the clutches of a kitten.

Stranger

I hear this all the time, and it's seen as some kind of self-evident truth, but I am increasingly beginning to doubt that we will see a stable Iraq as long as we have troops present in the country. Sure, we could stay there 50 years, but all that happens is that the insurgency changes from a rebellion against the invaders to a rebellion against the status quo. It's going to be a disaster no matter when we pull out, unless we are very fortunate indeed, and I don't think putting things off will make much difference in that.

We can only hope that a strong leadership devoted to peace and (hopefully) democracy (though we should really take what we can get, short of tyranny and oppression) will emerge to bring stability to Iraq with the departure of American troops. Or, hell, even while we're still there. But that's a romantic possibility for which I do not see very much hope :(.

[Squink]

We can only hope that a strong leadership devoted to peace and (hopefully) democracy (though we should really take what we can get, short of tyranny and oppression) will emerge to bring stability to Iraq...
Mmmm Mmmm; ice cream sundaes with an extra sprinkling of fairy dust. :p

Iraq fraud arrests expose criminality of US occupation (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m18011&l=i&size=1&hd=0) The arrest this week of a private contractor and a former US government official in connection with a multimillion-dollar contract-rigging and bribery scandal has exposed a piece of the corruption and criminality that is pervasive in America’s continuing military occupation of Iraq.Auditor urges Iraq corruption crackdown (http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Auditor-urges-Iraq-corruption-crackdown/2005/10/31/1130607183566.html) Iraq lost more than $US2 billion ($A2.63 billion) each year in stolen gasoline and diesel fuel supplies.

The report said Iraq's Bureau of Supreme Audit charged that up to $US1.27 billion ($A1.67 billion) from some 90 contracts was lost from June 2004 to February 2005 because deals were given to "favoured suppliers" and cash was given to third-party firms to work out contracts.

On October 10, Iraqi authorities issued warrants for the arrest of five former ministers and 22 former ministry of defence officials on criminal corruption charges, it said.Iraq's interim Prime Minister quickly learned the limits of his office. What awaits the next guy? (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1132799,00.html) What is certain is that the next head of government will inherit rampant corruption, stagnant oil exports, a crumbling infrastructure, deadly insurgencies (on Friday and Saturday alone, five suicide bombings killed more than 120 people), an Iraqi army riddled with factional militiamen and a police force suspected of conniving in sectarian violence.

[Grelby]

No kidding, squink. We can wish for it all we want, but it ain't going to happen. There's always hope, but... while we're at it, I want a pony.

[Merijeek]

Why do people keep bringing this up? Sex is a private matter. Now a President perjuring himself in a sexual harrassment lawsuit that has been brought against him is the public's business. Unless you think that sexual harrassment is not or should not be a crime.

Have you nothing new to say? The Chewbacca defense only works for people much more clever than you.

You've not go the brains nor the balls to pull it off.

-Joe

[Princhester]

The Chewbacca defense ...

Could someone help me out here?

[Larry Mudd]

Could someone help me out here?Heavy reliance on red herrings. It's a South Park reference, from a Johnnie Cochrane parody:But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca.

[PRODUCES PICTURE OF CHEWIE]

Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE! (Background: Damnit! What? He's using the Chewbacca defense!) Why would a Wookiee — an eight foot tall Wookiee — want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense.

Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense!

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... Does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.If you do it right, juror's heads explode.

[magellan01]

Have you nothing new to say? The Chewbacca defense only works for people much more clever than you.

You've not go the brains nor the balls to pull it off.

Funny you would bring up brains. Let's see, your post clearly implies that I must have repeatedly posted the same thing before. Not necessarily the using the exact smae words. I grant you, but that I've made that point repeatedly. Now let's see, I've posted over 970 times, so according to you quite a few of them would have been posts making the similar point. So, how many times have I done so? Since you made the claim, I ask you to count them. (My guess is two or three, and not recently. But hey, knock yourself out.) Now if you do go back and count them and there are only a couple, should I expect a retraction?

And for the record, I did not bring the subject up. I was simply commenting on a previous post that seemed to miss the point of the issue. So, you know, fighting ignorance and all that.

There have been many times I've let this little propaganda soundbite slide, but I think I'll take it as a charge of mine to fight the ignorance in this regard. Thanks for pointing out how important the charade is to some.

[Princhester]

Thanks, LM.

And Magellen01, something isn't a new thing to say if lots of people have said it. Even if the person now saying it isn't the person who has often said it before.

[SteveG1]

Mmmm Mmmm; ice cream sundaes with an extra sprinkling of fairy dust. :p

Iraq fraud arrests expose criminality of US occupation (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m18011&l=i&size=1&hd=0) Auditor urges Iraq corruption crackdown (http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Auditor-urges-Iraq-corruption-crackdown/2005/10/31/1130607183566.html) Iraq's interim Prime Minister quickly learned the limits of his office. What awaits the next guy? (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1132799,00.html)
That is no surprise to me at all. Since the very beginning, they were being investigated non just by the new Iraq government, but also by U.S. military and civilian reviewers and auditors. A person from my own office who went to Iraq was part of an investigation. It was only a matter of time until someone got caught. Seriously, this wasn't the office coffee fund, it was billions. People tend to notice when billions go missing.

[rjung]

I have to admit, the unwavering steadfastness of the Bush apologists to maintain their faith in the unseen wisdom of GeeDubya, even in light of all the evidence against them, is truly a sight to see. If nothing else, they truly exemplify the phrase "below average."

[World Eater]

I have to admit, the unwavering steadfastness of the Bush apologists to maintain their faith in the unseen wisdom of GeeDubya, even in light of all the evidence against them, is truly a sight to see. If nothing else, they truly exemplify the phrase "below average."

I was listening to Hannity this morning. He made me want to pull to the side of the road and weep for humanity.

I'm considering opening a thread to post a refutation of every single talking point. Nice short concise ones posters could employ when talking to one of these boneheads.