Either very drunk, or dead 
Ok, so everytime he smirks, we’re exempt from drinking on the following “freedom”. That should buy our livers some time.
I call dibs on “blind”!
But if we did that, there wouldn’t be any drinking at all!
Fuck that! Might as well get drunk beforehand if you’re going to put yourself through the agony.
Merijeek,
Not saying they are going to go easily or quietly – rather the opposite in fact. But there’s no denying that their credibility is finally at issue…
And a shot for everytime Bush says “Today, Iraqis are…” and then goes on to say something about how they can shop at WalMart or whatever.
Which would mean a whole lot to suicide bombers.
Blah blah blah vague shit blah blah blah. Does anyone believe this crap?
:rolleyes: x 1,000,000
You’re clearly not drinking enough.
Say September 11th again! :Chug:
Paging Sam Stone, Starving Artist, xtisme, Clothahump…
Problem is, no matter how well written and defined your arguement is, someone will accuse you of the same thing. See, for example, everyone who pointed out how durbin’s remarks isn’t a simple godwin.
:hic:
Is there a puke smiley?
Gah.
This is excruciating, for so many reasons.
It’s just more of the same, piled thicker and deeper. Does he really think repeating the same old bromides will magically make his shithole war seem all hunky dory? He can’t spin this or shift blame, and he doesn’t know how to do anything else.
Blah, blah, blah from the alternate universe of BushII.
God, how did we ever reach this low.
Don’t you see the shift they’re doing? They’re simply grooming the American public. It’s the perfect excuse, once we get out and the violence continues we can just shrug and say "we did all we can to prepare them ".
The blame won’t be on our our failure to secure the country, it will be on the Iraqis fault they can’t secure their country.
Of course Ray Charlse could have seen this coming.
Bush wins!
Maybe somebody laced the drinking supply with cognitive dissonance?
The problem is that if you leave the Iraqis to defend themselves, it won’t be long before the entire place is a base of operations for insurgency for the entire Middle East. What would be their next target? Starts with an “S”, ends with an “A”. Now that there are no long American bases there, the Saudis will raise oil prices so that they can take care of their own security. Guess what happens to our economy when the price of oil skyrockets? This is just the least of what will happen.
It amazes me that most people are unaware of all the shit this chickenhawk has gotten of into just because he wanted Saddam’s gun for his daddy and oil for his rich friends.
From the OP’s linked article:
Sounds like actual negotiations to me, rather than mere threats of the sort you mention. After all, we don’t need to meet in person with insurgent leaders in order to deliver them threats.
By being distracted. While liberals were demanding rights for trees and snail darters, and developing schemes to redistribute property, conservatives were stealing words like “freedom”. Somewhere along the way, liberals decided they’d rather step on a rusty nail than step on an endangered beetle. Eventually, it became a choice between “Take what I have, just please don’t hit me,” and “Spread freedom around the world”. It is only somewhere in the bowels of academia that the former is more palatable than the latter.
According to the article you cited, the negotiations are between American leaders and Sunni leaders, not between American leaders and insurgency leaders.
Personally, I’m not giving up hope yet that the Iraqis can negotiate some kind of compromise. Might work, and should certainly be easier now than a couple years from now.
For me, the tipoff that the Admin really has no clue what to try to do about this war will be if the spin machine starts blaming the anti-war protestors for not protesting the rush to war properly. We’ve already seen some attempts at blame-shifting to the effect that the problem is just those traitor liberals who aren’t supporting the troops hard enough, which is not a hopeful sign.
But if we get to the point where conservative pundits start grumbling that we could have avoided mistakes if only those damn anti-war liberals prior to the invasion had been more convincing, and not gone and gotten mixed up with radical pacifists and “Stalinists” and all that riffraff so that self-respecting conservatives had no choice but to ignore their warnings—well, that’s when I’m going to go home and crawl under the bed and cry for a week.
Well, the first line of the article says, as I already quoted in the OP:
In other words, US officials met with insurgency commanders. And, as I quoted in my most recent post, at the meetings, one self-declared Pentagon representative stated a desire to “find ways of stopping the bloodshed on both sides and to listen to demands and grievances". Like I said, sounds to me like actual negotiations, not mere threats.
Lemme get this straight—you think that conservatives “stole” something, but that the blame for that somehow belongs to liberals? If someone steals your TV set while you’re out peacefully and honestly earning your living, it’s your own fault for “being distracted”? Wow, talk about making excuses and apologetics for wrongdoers!
If some neocon war hawks have been using lies and misleading rhetoric to con our nation into a counter-productive and now-unpopular war, I say the blame for that rests squarely with the neocon war hawks themselves. Of course, many liberals have been objecting to neocon lies and misleading rhetoric about “freedom” all along, but even if we hadn’t, the responsibility for lying and misleading still belongs to the perpetrators.
I sure hope the conservative spin machine isn’t taking any cues from you, because this line of argument sounds perilously close to the “liberals should have protested properly” blame-shifting rhetoric that’s gonna have me crying under the bed for a week if it comes to pass.