Rounding Another Corner In Iraq

By
October 29, 2007

This is news unlike what we are used to coming out of Iraq. It suggests much better intelligence, an on going trend – and that a divide and conquer strategy is working. With Al Qaeda on the run in Iraq, getting the rogue Shia weeded out is major.

Just 24 hours after the capture of 11 Sunni and Shia tribal leaders in northern Baghdad, the Iraqi Army has freed eight of the sheikhs. Meanwhile, Multinational forces Iraq has identified the Mahdi Army commander responsible for the kidnappings, and has begun to name other Mahdi Army leaders as being involved in criminal and insurgent activity.



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. Terry Gain says:

    Dan
    I’m concerned about the impact of all this good news (for patriots) on the health of our beloved boob. It’s going to be a real shock to his system when he discovers in 2008 that it looks like his vision of 2013. Can we not start some kind of intervention to help him cope with the this body blow?
    SurgeOn.

  2. Fred Beloit says:

    May I suggest the Boob obtain a scarf made of mail, the stuff the old knights wore to protect the unarmored parts of their anatomies. This would prevent him from biting himself to death in the back of his neck.
    http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa041500a.htm

  3. Fred Beloit says:

    HHHMMM. A mail hijab, as it were.

  4. jay k. says:

    excellent news…so we can begin drawing down our troops and stop running up our debit spending immmediately…correct?

  5. Philadelphia Steve says:

    Great.
    Now the violence in Iraq is “down” to the levels of early 2006.
    And NeoConservatives everywhere will declare it evidence of the vast brilliance and competence on the part of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush.
    Conservatives have lowered the bar so far regarding the performance of the Bush Administration that it is laying on the ground.
    And now they want to repeat their “success” in Iran, a country more than three times the size of Iraq.
    I can’t wait to see how many “corners” we’ll turn there.

  6. madmatt says:

    We didn’t rescue anybody, the sunni’s were released, the shiites killed….

  7. Fred Beloit says:

    Say, jay, steve, when are you two going to start working to get our troops out of Korea and Germany? Remember the limerick about the old hermit named Dave? “…but think of the money I save.”

  8. Fred Beloit says:

    jay, we’ll never be able to, “…stop running up our debit spending…” while King Piggy Pork Murtha is in the Congress. He’s using your money and mine to enrich his home town. Wake up wrong people!

  9. scarshapedstar says:

    Shouldn’t that be “divide and liberate”?

  10. jay k. says:

    fred…
    how many soldiers were killed in germany or korea this past week? how much did our involvment there cost us?
    we couldn’t leave iraq last week because we were on the verge of winning. now we can’t leave because we are in germany and korea?
    murtha was in congress when we had a budget surplus. the commander in chief you love to worship spends money like a drunken awol air national guardsman, and you blame murtha. your blind loyalty is admirable, if dangerous.

  11. chris says:

    Amazing. The victories just keep happening. 8 of 18 provinces are now under Iraqi CONTROL. By 2013, the Iraqis could have their country back! What a victory. Words cannot express my pride.

  12. mike filanca says:

    Gee, I’m trying to keep up here. The Sunnis were the supporters of Sadaam Hussein. They were also killing our soldiers until recently when the brilliant Bush team started giving them weapons and money (to fight the Shia). Al Queda is Sunni, basically. Shia are the majority in Iraq, as they are in Iran. So if we support the Sunnis, we are basically doing what Sadaam did and stepping on the majority (of Shia). We are also supporting Al Quaeda by supporting Sunnis. These kinds of complications are exactly what was overlooked and ignored by our idiot president and among many reasons why we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place.

  13. jay k. says:

    actually chris…by 2013 iran will finally have full control of iraq with the exception of the kurdish north which will be engaged in war with turkey. words cannot express my pride.

  14. Ms Snarky Doucher says:

    jay (aka nowingker) writes: “spends money like a drunken awol air national guardsman”. Now, jay, it is national “guardsperson”. If you are going to slur the Guard, why not do it right, be inclusive.
    And, she writes: “how many soldiers were killed in germany or korea this past week? how much did our involvment[sic] there cost us?”
    Are you suggesting that we keep troops in Korea and Germany indefinitely, because it doesn’t cost much and because there is no fighting going on there? Gee, I always thought we sent troops to a war zone to engage in battle. What a dope I am. Or is it nowinker who is the dope. Wake up wrong people!

  15. Lala says:

    “budget surplus”
    very funny.

  16. Fred Beloit says:

    “murtha was in congress when we had a budget surplus.” Jay, “Not at this time” Murtha, now this is just for your information get me, is the biggest pork barrel trader in Congress. If you asked him, he’d probably agree that he brought the most federal dollars (your dollars, my dollars) home to his district. He’s proud of it! Wake up and wise up wretchedly wrong people.

  17. jay k. says:

    i wouldn’t slur the guard…i leave that to folks like rush limbaugh. i was slurring a specific drunken awol air national guardsman turned cowboy from new haven who is afraid of horses and has a hat and boots and a big belt buckle but no cattle.
    we have had troops stationed in germany and korea for a very long time. you want to debate that decades old policy…have at it. it’s apples and oranges though. i have noticed in the past several years though that the extreme right does enjoy false comparisons…it’s the only way to make their arguments hold water.

  18. Philadelphia Steve says:

    Re: “Say, jay, steve, when are you two going to start working to get our troops out of Korea and Germany? ”
    When our soldiers start dying in the same numbers as in Iraq to prop up a corrupt, religious fundamentalist government that exists only in the Green Zone. That’s when.
    The occupations of Germany, Japan and Austria after WW II were competentently (generally) performed. The occupation of Iraq was so incompetently executed that the country is irretrievable broken. And Conservatives want to open another front in Iran, just like Iraq.
    Conservatives continue to insist that, if they just wish hard enough, and write speeches that are inflamatory enough, America will send them a blank check, no matter how much they waste and botch everything they ever do.

  19. Philadelphia Steve says:

    Re: “Murtha, now this is just for your information get me, is the biggest pork barrel trader in Congress.”
    Ever hear of a guy names Ted Stevens, of Alaska? $400 million bridges to nowhere?
    Oh yeah! He’s a REPUBLICAN. So he gets the automatic Conservative FREE PASS, doesn’t he?

  20. Fred Beloit says:

    And the top ten myths about the war:
    http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/topten/articles/20070128.aspx
    This will keep you anti-Americans busy for a few minutes. See you later for more fun.

  21. jay k. says:

    lieberman got re-elected on how much money he brought home. i say lets get rid of the senior senator from isreal.

  22. jay k. says:

    fred is funny…if you don’t agree with him then you are wretchedly wrong thinking and anti-american. so typical of the far extreme right.

  23. chris says:

    Fred is just an angry, sweaty man in a trailer. He did nothing with his life and is now very bitter.

  24. jay k. says:

    chris…now let’s be fair…you don’t know that he lives in a trailer.

  25. Philadelphia Steve says:

    How does “Conservative” Trent Lott (Mississippi) stand up in the realm of not living off the federal trough?
    http://www.ncpa.org/ea/eand94/eand94h.html
    But then, he’s a REPUBLICAN, so Conservatives kept their mouths shut as long as Republicans controlled Congress.

  26. ET says:

    boob/chris/steve/jay…where is your brave democrat leadership? Have they de-funded the war? What steps has congress taken to save us from the evil Bush juggernaut? What will your democratic presidential candidates do in Iraq if elected? Pull the troops home? Not a chance. It is down to you and cindy sheehan…good luck with that crazy loon.
    Face it: You lost this debate. You are wrong about Iraq and our mission there. Normal democrats understand this, but are too dishonest to admit it. You are beyond fringe. You are marginalized and irrelevant. We only come here to rub your noses in it because your ignorance makes you such easy targets. Soon, even we will tire of the sport and you will be left pissing in the wind…
    Liberals suck.

  27. seekeronos says:

    In reference to the commentary concerning troops in Germany, South Korea and Japan…
    Germany: After a bombing campaign and a war conducted in grand, “total” fashion — where 1 building out of three was completely destroyed beyond any hope of repair, and nearly all of its industrial and a very high percentage of its residential areas destroyed, to say nothing of the complete collapse of the 3d.Reich – it is almost axiomatic that the Germans themselves were utterly demoralized and defeated. Only the most hardcore SS continued any resistance after the cease-fire in May-July of 1945; these futile attempts to fight the overwhelming force of occupation by either the Allies or the Soviets were very few and far between. Most were captured and many of them killed with utmost prejudice (vae victis) whilst most higher ranking NSDAP members who did not surrender themselves, attempted to escape out of Europe to meet with whatever their historical ends have been documented, facing certain death and/or incarceration through the determined efforts of Nazi hunters and the like.
    In short, the people were so broken, that any further resistance was regarded as insanity. There are also social psychological aspects to this, in that Germans typically abhor suicidal measures.
    While the Cold War with the Soviet Union required an extensive US presence for nearly 50 years, this also had the of relieving Germany (and much of NATO, to a somewhat lesser extent) from having to rebuild its shattered military, to say nothing of quelling European angst over a re-militarized Germany within one or two generations of the fall of the 3d.Reich. The cost savings of not having to pump double-digit percentages of its GDP to defense issues also contributed in large measure to the Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) of the 1950s-60s.
    Arguably, with the Cold War Threat in remission (pending further aggressive movements from Putin, or a sharpening of an ongoing aggressive trend in Russian foreign policy) — there is no need for the extensive “occupation” framework to support forces on the order of REFORGER or even much beyond a few forward ops locations, while Germany and France (and the Scandinavian nations) are roundly encouraged to funnel significant amounts of their economic might to building a common EU military, or increasing their own independent militaries under NATO; thus freeing substantial US forces to be massed in SW Asia.
    Japan: Like Germany in most regards after the war; a broken people without hope – whose willingness to support the extremely repressive militarist regime was conditional with the (apparent) assent of their god: the Japanese Emperor. Except but those words of his which called upon the Japanese to “bear the unbearable” … that is, the complete and utter loss of the war to the Allies and specifically the anticipated occupation by the USA) – most people would have stealed themselves with grim determination to fight for their sacred land and their gods (and their ancestors who lived on as gods). Perhaps even resorting to techniques we currently view as those employed by terrorists, as called for by “Operation Ketsugō”.
    Between 1867-1945, the captains of state steered the “cult of the Tennō Heika” (a term referring to the Emperor in his ‘capacity’ as the Divine God-King of Heaven and Earth – a title which is still used today). Developing this concept of Arahitogami, or the incarnation of the person of the Emperor as a living god, was key to manipulating the lower classes into nothing short of blind obedience to the whim of the militarists and Zaibatsu commercial cliques of the Taishō and early Shōwa periods (1912-1945). This only built upon the earlier work of Katsura Kogorō (Kido Takayoshi), Itō Hirobumi, Ōkubo Toshimichi and others of the so-called heroes of the Bakamatsu Revolution and Imperial Restoration (Meiji Isshin) who had used the Emperor as a rallying point for popular support against the Tokugawa Shōgunate. After deposing the last Shōgun, the concept of a unified state for Japan could only rest upon a religious construct (Kokka, or State Shintō) with the Emperor at its head – roughly paralleling the role enjoyed by medieval papal authority with far greater efficiency.
    This same Imperial Cult stood behind the galvanization of the peasants to look beyond their plots of land, their villages, and formerly, their hans (domains), but rather to the State and its god.
    I think that even the threat of Soviet intervention and even invasion of the Home Islands (which I believe was a far more potent motivating factor than the two nuclear detonations – although not discounting their role either) would not have moved the average Japanese from meeting a grim end in house to house fighting and the scouring of the rugged and remote mountains from which the most persistent resistance could have functioned for a great many years… in vain hopes of wearing down the Allies. More likely, the USA might have continued nuking cities and then the Kantō and Kansai plains themselves to destroy the food production capacity, effectively besieging the island for several years until most people had died of starvation or radiation sickness.
    Could the US have done such a merciless thing? In that era and political climate, I’d say definitely so. We fought brutal and ugly wars that thought little of feeding tens of thousands of souls into a meat grinder for the sake of liberty and freedom, that millions might be free. And many of those sacrificed souls did so willingly, or not with such great resolve distilled through generations of historical glorification, at the very least they followed orders and looked for the “get it done” aspect of bringing the war home to the aggressors and finishing it.
    Vae Victis applies particularly to that time; had the 3d.Reich achieved victory, and Yamamoto Isoroku’s oft-misquoted statement about “dictating surrender terms in Washington DC” borne been true, and the Allie commanders judged in war crimes trials, folks like “Bomber Harris” and “Butcher (Curtis) LeMay” as well as FDR and Winston Churchill might have been the ones to have swung from ropes at war’s end.
    Yet, for all the evil visited upon that beautiful land, today, it stands as a solid brother nation – and with encouragement and diplomacy, may yet be called to shed the youthful garments of a time where Japan was forbidden from possessing a large standing military and nuclear deterrent by both the Allies and its very nervous neighbours. Yet with a resurgent China and an unstable Korean peninsula, Japan must be able to assert her self in the region that to deter violence against her people – while the USA slowly draws down its physical presence aside from maintaining FOL bases and such infrastructure as needed to quickly re-deploy in time of great need.
    South Korea: While South Korea (hereinafter: ROK) never suffered as a target of the Allies in WW2, it has existed under threat of attack from the DPRK (the Norks) since the cease-fire in the 1950s. Until power passes from the current regime to a successor or successor party that can be more easily reasoned with, or until the DPRK can be finally pushed into imploding upon itself, a standing US presence will be necessary. There is little threat of Islamist terrorism as we are fighting in SW Asia, but the ability to present containment of the DPRK must be maintained.
    In like manner, Iraq is occupied, and yes – it is qualitatively different from either the Japanese or German occupations, in that (a) Allah is not a living deity who can be bent as the former Shōwa Emperor was, nor the people subject to the harsh penalties of total war visited upon Hitler’s Reich to the same degree of brokenness. In fact, such a harsh, the total war ethic might have proven injurious, no, _disastrous_ to any occupation effort, with Americans being perceived as evildoers and menaces, as opposed to their current overall coordination with American forces to rid their nation of Islamist terrorist factions.
    Iran may need to be handled even differently as well, given a not-overly publicized anti-cleric/anti-Ahmadinejad/anti-revolutionary movement among Persian youth and younger men.People with thicker glasses and bigger than average brains and niftier slide rules — folks generally smarter than the average American and well-paid to do interesting things — are looking into this aspect even now. Perhaps especially so, given the scrutiny their intelligence has already been subjected to.

  28. seekeronos says:

    Jay K.:
    In case you missed it, “chris”, “BobinStamford”, “CarlSpackler”, “Artie”, and “Kelvin” are but a handful of the personalities of the same guy who posts here.
    There are some liberals here who can actually engage in intelligent discourse here, but as you might see from parsing some of the other posts that he replies to, “chris” et. al. is more often than not one of them.
    On rare occasion he actually says something meaningful; in the year or so I’ve seen him and his various incarnations comment-trolling this site, I think which can be counted by an integer between 1 and 2.
    When he really gets stumped, he starts turning out the trailer park epithets and vulgar statements like a speed freak looking for his next hit.

  29. rwilymz says:

    “how many soldiers were killed in germany or korea this past week? how much did our involvment there cost us?”
    It costs billions to remain in Germany [Britain, Italy, Spain, Turkey, the Balkans] and Korea each year.
    “murtha was in congress when we had a budget surplus”
    Are you going to suggest he caused it? If so, you’d be wrong.
    “the commander in chief … spends money like a drunken awol air national guardsman”
    That he does. Yes.
    “and you blame murtha. your blind loyalty is admirable, if dangerous.”
    No more dangerous than your own. No more disingenuous, either.
    “Al Queda is Sunni, basically”
    That’s like saying “Mormons are Protestants, basically.”
    “These kinds of complications are exactly what was overlooked and ignored by our idiot president and among many reasons why we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place.”
    Excuse me, Mr Filanca, but what you are calling “complications” are deliberate, and not to mention completely ludicrous, oversimplifications.
    If you can’t speak more knowledgeably about the subject than this, you shouldn’t even attempt to insinuate yourself into it.
    “we have had troops stationed in germany and korea for a very long time. you want to debate that decades old policy…have at it. it’s apples and oranges though.”
    Depends on which foreign deployment you’re talking about. Germany is oranges to the Iraqi apple, yes. Korea is, though, a Granny Smith apple to the Iraqi Macintosh apple.
    We are babysitting Li’l Kim and the Pompadours pursuant to cease-fire and a 54 year old commitment to the UN that we cannot get out of. We were babysitting Hussein ditto. The difference between the two is that Iraq violated the terms of their cease fire; Korea hasn’t.
    “i have noticed in the past several years though that the extreme right does enjoy false comparisons”
    So Mike Filanca is from the “extreme right”? Him and his “Sunni = al Qaida” shinola?
    “When our soldiers start dying in the same numbers as in Iraq to prop up a corrupt, religious fundamentalist government that exists only in the Green Zone. That’s when.”
    Ahhhhh! So our soldiers are to be used for parades and such stuff; but when the bullets start flying, that’s when we hide them! Good plan.
    “The occupations of Germany, Japan and Austria after WW II were competentently (generally) performed.”
    No; they were *brutally* performed. When German nazi or Japanese imperial recidivists acted up, they were holed up in worse-then-Abu Ghraib conditions. That’s what you didn’t get from the media in the 40s and early 50s. That’s what the media delights in giving today. The occupation of Iraq is orders of magnitude tamer than the occupations of Germany or Japan, but we delight in a-contextual history in this country in this era.
    And Conservatives want to open another front in Iran, just like Iraq.
    To listen to “liberal” politicians, a number of them do as well. Or at least they did two years ago. Remember when this country’s liberals were saying that we should have waited for the “real” enemy, Iran? instead of going off half-cocked on Iraq?
    Remember?
    Of course not; it’s too uncomfortable.
    Not to mention, to listen to Germany and France, they do as well.

  30. Philadelphia Steve says:

    Re: “boob/chris/steve/jay…where is your brave democrat leadership? Have they de-funded the war? ”
    The fact that the Democratic leadership in Congress has failed to prevent President Bush from continuing his debacle in Iraq is a testament to the near lockstep loyalty that Republicans continue to show to the White House.
    However that does not in any way increase the competence of Geroge W. Bush one iota.
    He has still bungled his way into tens (hundreds?) of thousands of deaths and an occupation that was supposed to be paid for by “Iraqi oil money” now costing American $3 billion a week. (Meaning every three months, Bush’s incompetence costs more than the five-year cost of the SCHIP bill he vetoed as “too expensive”).
    So, yes, you can make fun of the fact that Democrats cannot override the Loyal Bushies in the Senate and thier fillibusters and sustaining of presidential vetoes.
    However Geroge W. Bush is still incompetent, and many have died since Mr. Bush dared insurgents to kill Americans with his boast, “Bring ‘em on!”
    But Conservatives everywhere are so proud of that remark, aren’t they?

  31. rwilymz says:

    “However that does not in any way increase the competence of Geroge W. Bush one iota.”
    I keep hearing about this “incompetence” of the guy. Yet no one can explain it satisfactorily.
    Many claim he’s incompetent because he started a war in Iraq. Yet that’s what he tried to do. Sounds competent to me.
    Others claim it’s because he hasn’t satisfied their social policy demands that it proves his incompetence. Yet it’s doubtful he was trying to; he was, though, trying to accomplish other social policy effects, and he largely did so. More competence.
    Others are more honest about it, and have equivocated “incompetence” to “doing things I didn’t want him to do”. Which is as close to accurate as any of his critics have been over the past 7 years.
    So, would you be so be so kind as to describe which false version of “incompetent” you are throwing around, please, Stevie?

  32. Philadelphia Steve says:

    Re: “Ahhhhh! So our soldiers are to be used for parades and such stuff; but when the bullets start flying, that’s when we hide them! Good plan.”
    No.
    But I also do not wish to see them continue to be mangled and die solely because George W. Bush will get his feelings hurt if he has to publicly admit he screwed up.
    It is one thing to make a hard decision that will lead to the death of others. It is quite another when, through hubris and incompetence, thousands die. It is especially serious when those deaths are continued just because the fragile ego of President Bush has to be preserved through January 2009.
    Donald Rumsfeld declared, in June 2003, that he did not expect the occupation to last more than six months. However his botched occupation, where the Ministry of Oil was secured day one, and the Iraqi Army weapons depots were left unguarded for months, can be directly linked to the rise of an insurgency and civil war that is now claiming American and Iraqi lives, and costing $180+ billion a year.
    But Conservatives everywhere, lead by Dick Cheney, declared that Mr. Rumsfeld was the “greatest Defense Secretary in History”… At least until George W. Bush dumped him after the 2006 elections.
    And, while the “Surge” has proven that the American Army can control areas where they patrol (and kill many Iraqis through air strikes), it has failed to deliver the solution that President Bush gave as his reason for starting it: An Iraqi government that can control anywhere outside of the Green Zone.
    So, now we are arming the Sunni militias, so they can oust al Qaeda elements (which the US Military assesment of July 2007 pegged at between 6 and 10% of the insurgency). And from there the Sunnis will, of course, go on to fight their civil war with the similarly US equipped and trained Shia militias.
    Great. America is training, paying and equipping both sides of a civil war, and likely to be shot from both sides. And later we can do the same things when Turkey goes to war with Kurdistan.
    The botched results of Iraq goes on and on, beyond the “lost” $9 billin in cash that was flown to Baghdad after it fell, and promptly dissapeared with no trace… To $2 billino paid to train Iraqi police for which the State Department can find absolutely no documentable results.
    When someone has proven himself to be so completely inept at his job, he is usually fired. We cannot fire George W. Bush because the 100% loyalty of the Republican party will prevent it. But we, at least those of us who honestly review his results, should not continue the Conservative policy of 100% blind loyalty to George W. Bush and complete pretence that he actually is up to the job of “Wartime President”.
    He isn’t. It is obvious. Only blind party loyalty blocks every single Conservative from admitting so.

  33. seekeronos says:

    Better to have loyalty to a cause which occassionally errs, but generally performs well (GOP)…. than to figure out how to get everyone to herd their cats in the same direction and generally do not much of anything (DemCong i.e. Democrat Congress).

  34. rwilymz says:

    “But I also do not wish to see them continue to be mangled and die solely because George W. Bush will get his feelings hurt if he has to publicly admit he screwed up.”
    What did he “screw up”? You’re awful quick with the value judgments, but I’ve seen a huge dearth of substance behind them, save for the grand weight of your mighty **opinion**.
    “now we are arming the Sunni militias, … from there the Sunnis will, of course, go on to fight their civil war with the similarly US equipped and trained Shia militias.”
    The Shia militias are being armed and trained by Iran. Really; it’s been in all the papers.
    Don’t you remember back when the press delighted in pointing out how it was US “failure” in Iraq that allowed Iran the capacity to arm and train a half dozen different factions of militia?
    “America is training, paying and equipping both sides of a civil war, and likely to be shot from both sides.”
    You want to rethink any of this? Exactly how much are you willing to advertise yourself unfamiliar with in order to ping a prez you don’t like?
    Don’t you remember when it was *another* US “failure” that allowed Iraq to fall into a civil war in the first place and make greater targets of themSELVES than us? …as if we *should* be the preferred target in their civil war?
    Well, we aren’t. they are killing themselves hand over fist. It is a twelve-sided civil war, between various factions of folks who all hate us and would like to shoot at us … if only they weren’t too busy indulging their millenia-old grievances against each other! Darn the luck!
    When US troops get shot at in Iraq *today* — not three years ago, **today** — it is more than likely because they got in between two or more groups of yahoos having a gangwar.
    “And later we can do the same things when Turkey goes to war with
    Kurdistan.”
    Kurdi-what? Oh, you mean the faux-“nation” invented by meddlesome western neophytes to make up for the first batch of meddlesome post-colonial western neophytes carving up the planet into faux-“nations”?
    Yes. Tribalism is a bugaboo, idnit? And when left in their own corners of the world, certain brands of tribalists get all hot under the collar about “superpower” countries being all *economic* and everything; but when that superpower dropkicks the hornet’s nest and brings those tribalists out into the open, those tribalists discover they don’t like each other at least as much as they don’t like the “superpower”, … and that they are easier to kill. And so they do. With great dispatch.
    And this is somehow, mysteriously, a measure of *our* ineptitude. Tribalists being easily manipulable hotheads for 10,000 years is *our doing* in the early 21 century.
    Yep.
    Gotcha.
    It’s all so clear now.

  35. gil says:

    OH yes!!
    Good news at last from Iraq.
    Now all we need is just another Trillion Dollars or two, so that we can start bringing our troops back home….. Altough our troops might reach retirement age before that happens.
    But Hey, Republicans great job!!!
    You spent 1 Trillion Dollars, destroyed Iraq, gave us more terrorists than ever in the history of humanity, put our troops in a quagmire from hell, empowered Iran, and made Osama’dreams come true…..
    Only to put America in the position of hearing “good news” now, about the mess YOU STARTED.
    The only good news I want to hear, is that you are gone back to the hole Republicans.

  36. gil says:

    seekeronos.
    “Better to have loyalty to a cause that accassionally errs the (GOP)”
    No my friend what is better is to DEMAND competence regardless of the party in power. I take it you are an American first, and a Republican second correct? Then act the part.
    Bush is an abject failure of a leader. I’ll say that if he was a Democrat, Libertarian, or a Martian. Stupidity has no borders, no colors, and most certainly no party affiliation.

  37. rwilymz says:

    “Altough our troops might reach retirement age before that happens.”
    Draft. Simple solution. Make national service compulsory.
    “…destroyed Iraq”
    Just wait until the Democrats take office! They want to do to Sudan what the Republicans did to Iraq! …and also what the Democrats did to Serbia, not to put too fine a point on it.
    And I’ll stay employed either way!
    Yeehah!
    “…gave us more terrorists than ever in the history of humanity”
    No matter what we do, we’re getting “more terrorists than ever in the history of…” because that’s simply the world we live in.
    “…put our troops in a quagmire from hell”
    Define this “quagmire”. Please. I mean, if it’s not too much trouble, or whatever. I wouldn’t want to make your head explode while attempting to construct the grand equivocations most people rely on, but, y’know, if you have time to advertise your credulity for me, I’d appreciate it.
    “…empowered Iran”
    By doing what?
    “…made Osama’dreams come true…..”
    Oh? He was dereaming of becoming a forced hermit and dying early from effective privation?
    Cool.
    “Only to put America in the position of hearing …about the mess YOU STARTED.”
    Right. We started 1,400 years of panislamist hooey.
    Um, dingleberries? Exactly how many Wayback Machines do you folks actually think you have?

  38. Fred Beloit says:

    http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/10/iraqi_troops_free_tr.php
    Sorry to inject more good war news into the liberal maw, but duty calls.

  39. rwilymz says:

    “Bush is an abject failure of a leader.”
    By what terms?
    Because he did/is doing things you don’t want him to do?
    That does not equal “failure”. That only equals “at odds with you.” The fact that he is also at odds with huge numbers of like-minded individuals whose sense of self-importance overshadows legal/constitutional propriety means, frankly, less than nothing.
    Who cares what you *think*. If you don’t like him or what he does, vote for someone else. Vote twice if local law allows it — and local law in many commonly Democratic areas of the country do allow it, even if accidentally.
    But when the voting’s over and you lost, suck it up. To do less means you’re a poor loser, with the integrity of a Cardinals fan when the Cubs win the division. Such whining and crying and wailing and backbiting and thumbsucking you’d only expect to see in a nursery school.
    Good god, folks, grow up.

  40. seekeronos says:

    “— I take it you are an American first, and a Republican second… —”
    That I do. In fact, I even voted for a Democrat congressman in the 2006 because the incumbent was an incredibly inept and corrupt individual. Believe me, it took much internal reservation about contributing my 1/300,000,000th of of a shred of congressional (R) representation and influence this amounts to on my part, or perhaps a 1/20,000,000th of a shred of state representation that this amounts, to yield a formerly Republican seat to a Democrat (actually, he’s not all that bad, as I can see eyes-to-eyes with his platform on environmental and energy issues).
    I assuaged myself by voting (R) on all the other folks on the ticket, who all otherwise seemed to be rather competent civil servants and not abounding in as much rampant political scumbaggery as their (D) competition.
    “— No my friend what is better is to DEMAND competence regardless of the party in power. —”
    I see no problem with that. And generally, (in my opinion) the GOP has a better track record of competence – especially in the matters of foreign policy – than the Democrats do.
    They lack somewhat (again, my opinion) in social and economic issues for my liking… but I’m afraid that the Dems would do far worse damage with catering to the particular constituencies they cater to vs. those of the Repubs.

  41. Fred Beloit says:

    rwily destroyed the “incompetence” claim very effectively above. But the warts of the left can only repeat the same old stuff whether there is truth behind it or not. Pretty sad.
    “No my friend what is better is to DEMAND competence regardless of the party in power” writes gil. And to reinforce the impression that he is a jivea-s punk, he adds this:
    “Only to put America in the position of hearing “good news” now, about the mess YOU STARTED.”
    oouuww, ” you started”in in big letters. But who does this second-person explosion include? Why Hillery Clinton and the big majority of Democratics who voted to support
    the war, not once but several times.
    This is how it went down in the Senate:
    S.AMDT.4856 to S.J.RES.45: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 October 10, 2002 Passed Providing cloture for a resolution authorizing the president to use military force in order to defend the national security of the U.S. against Iraq. (more info at full article)
    S.AMDT.4862 to S.J.RES.45: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 October 10, 2002 Failed Requiring the president to receive authorization from the United Nations before using military force in Iraq. (more info at full article)
    S.AMDT.4865 to S.J.RES.45: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 October 10, 2002 Failed Requiring the existence of an imminent threat prior to U.S. military deployment in Iraq. (more info at full article)
    S.AMDT.4868 to S.J.RES.45: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 October 10, 2002 Failed Declaring that the authorization to use force in Iraq reasserts Congress’s power to declare war. Requiring the president to receive congressional authorization for any military action not related to an imminent threat. (more info at full article)
    S.AMDT.4869 to S.J.RES.45: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 October 10, 2002 Failed Setting a one-year limit on the congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq. (more info at full article)
    H.J.RES.114: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 October 10, 2002 Passed Authorizes the president to use military force in order to defend the national security of the U.S. against Iraq. (more info at full article)
    More here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Senate_votes_on_the_Iraq_War

  42. Tom says:

    Fred is just an angry, sweaty man in a trailer. He did nothing with his life and is now very bitter.
    Posted by: chris

    fred beloit wants a king to rule the land. It is very simple – because fred is really simple. No free thinking for Fred. No choices for fred. no options for Fred – just imperial announcements to keep him happy and safe. Fred beloit is exactly what is wrong with America right now: He doesn’t like democracy because he has to think. he doesn’t like the Constitution because he would have to read it. He doesn’t like the Bill of Rights because he cannot count too high. Fred epitomizes the last gasp 25%r’s. Fred Beloit is a fool and a chickenhawk using YOUR CHILDREN to fight another illegal invasion.

  43. Fred Beloit says:

    Want more? Let’s see what Sen Kerry thought:
    washingtonpost.com > Politics > Elections > 2004 Election > John Kerry
    Print This Article
    E-Mail This Article
    RSS News Feeds
    Top News
    John Kerry
    What is RSS? | All RSS Feeds
    Iraq War, 2002-2003
    Wednesday, October 20, 2004; Page A08
    With few of the misgivings he cited before voting against the Persian Gulf War in 1991, Kerry voted in October 2002 to authorize use of force against Iraq, agreeing in effect with President Bush that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that posed an “unacceptable threat” to the world.
    In a speech outlining his reasons, Kerry made no reference to his 1991 vote against war with Iraq but noted that “September 11 changed a lot,” requiring “a different response, different thinking and different approaches that we have applied in the past.”
    (Peter Dejong — AP)
    Free E-mail Newsletters
    * Daily Politics News & Analysis
    See a Sample | Sign Up Now
    * Federal Insider
    See a Sample | Sign Up Now
    * Breaking News Alerts
    See a Sample | Sign Up Now
    Although he would not support war for “regime change” alone, “the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real” and a justification for use of force, he said.
    Democrats, chastened by unfavorable reaction to their 1991 votes against the Persian Gulf War, split 29 to 21 in favor of the second Iraq war, with Kerry once again siding with a majority of them. The Senate vote authorizing use of force against Iraq was thus as lopsided as the earlier Iraq war vote had been close: 77 to 23.

  44. Fred Beloit says:

    Hey, moT, there is absolutely nothing illegal about the Iraq war, nothing. Don’t you see how badly you discredit everything you say by claiming a war voted by Congress, signed by the President and approved by the courts is “illegal”? Arise from your slumbers sh—-ad!

  45. Fred Beloit says:

    OUUUwwwwwaaaaahhhhh: “Fred is just an angry, sweaty man in a trailer. He did nothing with his life and is now very bitter.”
    Why Mr christamfordmum, your list of the victims of your bigotry grows longer. Rednecks, the bitter, people who live in trailers, people made angry by the mean-spirited buffoonery of the Left, and now, oh no, sweating people. He doesn’t care that my trailer surrounded body is sweaty because of global warming, which is very apparent in Florida because it happens every March and doesn’t end until about January 1st each year. Hhmm but it doesn’t seem to be happening in Antarctica…ever. Odd.

  46. Robert says:

    rwilymz,
    You are correct sir.
    Bush was elected (by the REAL power in this country) to screw the poor, hand the U.S. Treasury to his war profiteering corporate masters, start wars to support corporate interests (Cheney’s energy meeting with oil execs, anyone?), fool the american people into believing he was fighting for their freedom, use the courts to remove the rights of the people and provide free passes to corporate wrong-doers, and basically bring the working class of this country to it’s knees.
    Incompetent? I think not.
    Read “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” and come back and then tell me how incompetent W is.

  47. Fred Beloit says:

    Robert, you sly rascal and low-down bounder. Hahaha. You had me going for a second there. What a super impression of a leftwing nut, you fox you. Great. Here is something similar to repay you for the favor of your wit:
    http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/10/how_to_get_the_world_to_like_u.php

  48. gil says:

    rwiylmz.
    Here some of the answers to your questions:
    “What the Democrats did to Serbia”. Serbia is in peace now,along with the Balkans. Not a single American soldier was lost, and if that the way the Democrats will trun Iraq into then by all means do so!!! By the way, you do know recent events historic FACTS do you??? Reason I ask is because you sound like you don’t understand what went on in the Balkans.
    By what terms is Bush an abject failure of a leader?? You are still asking!!!! OH I don’t know, lets see if we go into a war with a nation that had no WMD’s at all, had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack, and mismanaged every aspect of the subsecuent occupation I guess you would call that a failure of Leadership maibe????
    Or it’s getting a blow job in the oval office the only thing that qualifies as “failure of leadership” in your book??? Hey, at leasr no one got killed with Monika’s “gift” to Clinton…. On the other hand tens of thousands of people have lost their lives, millions have been displaced, Iran HAS BEEN EMPOWERED BY OUR IRAN INVASION, etc, etc.
    Please pal, do research the subject a bit more before you comment. It will help all of us in a discusion. I should not have to explain to you why Bush is a failure…… A five year old knows the reasons by now.

  49. gil says:

    rwilmyz.
    “When the voting is over and you lost suck it up. To do less means you’re a poor looser”
    You observation that Bush was elected and therefore we should just take his incompetence, is kind of dumb if I might say so.
    Tell me pal, do you take Democrat incompetence in silence??? If we elect Hillary President will you just march on no matter what she does, and “suck it up”???
    The answer is no, so please stop your hypocrisy.
    You are right in that elections give the winners the right to make desicions. That’s why Republicans lost Congress in 2006, and according to every poll will loose the White House and even more sits in Congress in 2008.
    So when the Democrats are back in full control do apply your “suck it up logic” on yourself OK???? We are in a Democracy to “suck up” the winner according to you.
    You most be confusing us with Guatemala.

  50. gil says:

    seekeronos.
    Since you say that the Republicans have a better level of competence than Democrats in foreign policy can you pleasee explain to me where do you find the competence in Republicans supporting a President that started a war on WMD’s but found none, declared that the war was going to last for five months, and we are still there 6 years after, appointed Donald Rumsfeld to conduct the “reconstruction” of Iraq…. And we all know where that ended up, stated that the war was going to be paid with Iraq’s oil, and was going to cost us 50 billion Dollars…. We have spent 800 billion and counting, etc, etc.
    That’s what you call a better foreign policy record??? Can you please explain to me whay???
    ANy foreign relation agreement you can point out to me that the Bush Administration has accomplished????? I am all ears, please tell me why you are so sold in this incredibly competent people !!!
    Or please be honest with me, and just admit you are a partisan Republican and let’s stop the charade will you? I was not born yesterday you know.

  51. Wahoo Willie Sez: says:

    Gil
    Just a curiousity. Is English your second language?

  52. gil says:

    WAHOO.
    Just a curiosity. Is your real name Wahoo??

  53. Wahoo Willie Sez: says:

    Wahoo is a game fish. While I am game. I am not a fish.

  54. gil says:

    fred beloit
    Dear ponk friend.
    Apparently you have a problem with my remark of “You most demand competence from the party in power”. Now that’s what I call “ponk” behavior pal.
    So what do you propose? If some one invades a country for the wrong reason, and makes a mess of the occupation we are supposed to do what in your book????
    Talk about Clinton’s Blow Job maibe???
    Is Bush our leader or not? Reason I ask is because on one hand you agree with rwilmiz remarks that if we elect a leader then he/she should lead and we most “suck it up”…. So what gives?
    In my book, and pleace feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Bush designed the strategy to invade Iraq, created the momentum, went to Congress, requested Congress, went to the U.N. demanded of the U.N. took out the inspectors, appointed the Generals to conduct the invasion, gave the power to people like Donald Rumsfeld to “manage” the occupation, dictated the terms of the duration of the occupation, etc, etc. HE DID IT BECAUSE WE ELECTED HIM PRESIDENT, AND BECAUSE HE WAS OUR LEADER….. But now you are hiding behind Hillary’s skirt and telling me that Hillary supported Bush in his resolution????
    A resolution support pal does not make a war…. A Leader starts (or not) a war. It is HIS decision, it is HIS strategy, it is HIS vision,or lack of it…… And in the end it is HIS RESPONSABILITY….. If one is intellectualy honest that is.
    So again I ask you . Is Bush our Leader or is it Hillary?
    Hillary was but a vote in Congress. The Democrats voted against it. If Hillary voted with Bush, I am sure she did not appoint Rumsfeld, or designed the occupation, or was the one that “calculated” that 50 billion Dollars would be the cost of the war, and that the war was going to last for five months….. Or was she?????

  55. seekeronos says:

    Gil:
    “— where do you find the competence in Republicans supporting a President that started a war on WMD’s but found none declared that the war was going to last for five months, and we are still there 6 years after, appointed Donald Rumsfeld to conduct the “reconstruction” of Iraq…. And we all know where that ended up, stated that the war was going to be paid with Iraq’s oil, and was going to cost us 50 billion Dollars…. We have spent 800 billion and counting, etc, etc. —”
    Surely if you follow American politics, you’d know that both sides frequently spin up a believable amount of song and dance… much of which was based upon observations and field information available at least six years old (as of this year) if not older.
    Did we find multi-stage ICBMs or even mid-range missiles or Sub-launched missiles capable of hitting Israel, much less Europe or points more distant? Or Nigerian Yellowcake, or any other substantial amount of NBC agents or even precursor chemicals, uranium, or other WMD technology? Of course not. Saddam didn’t get to be dictator of a nation of some 58 million Iraqis by being as dumb as a stump. On the eve of the invasion in 2003, he had plans to evacuate any material he had to his buddies in Syria, Jordan, and perhaps grudgingly, Iran.
    The timeline of the war? I’m sure the planners and big brained folks in the Pentagon realized that we’d have to sit on top of Iraq for quite some time until we can get a unified Iraqi regime favourable to our interests up and running. And to advertise this particular bit of info to the public at large might not have played very well to the more immediate security interests of deposing Saddam and gaining a permanent presence next to the REAL problem-child of the Middle East over the past 25~30 -ish years since the Shah was made to take a hike.
    To re-iterate, Saddam was child’s play – a mere stepping stone to the greater mission of containing Iranian interests, cutting off access to a substantial part of the cheap oil supply to unfriendly nations (Red China and Russia in particular, and Iran by extension: why use your own domestic supply when you can buy your neighbour’s and deplete his stocks?)
    Will it take much longer than the cheerily announced timetables first published in 2003? Absolutely. You’d be a fool to think otherwise.
    Moreover, our occupation and the surge is showing palpably positive results. Tribalism is being brought into a manageable arena. Al-Q and the Shi’a hotheads are on the wane. Less troops and less and less Iraqis are dying due to terror attacks and related stresses. Schools and hospitals are being rebuilt.
    Admittedly, I think it could have been handled much better: instead of turning the social structure of Iraq inside out by deposing Ba’athists at every level, we could have harvested those Ba’ath members who kept the infrastructure running, and the wilder children suppressed (much like we did in post-Nazi Germany, where the numerous ex-Wehrmacht soldiers, Kriminalpolizei [KriPo] and Ordnungpolizei [OrPo] as well as a few non-militarised NSDAP functionaries were kept around on a very short leash long enough to get the main lights and gas back on). Once the weeding out process of de-nazification got underway, those who didn’t pass muster on the new political dogma were shown the door or shown to a cell as the case merited.
    The same might have been done with much more efficient results in limiting partisan and Shi’a-Shi’a and Shi’a-Sunni frictions that had long been suppressed by Saddam.
    The cost? Get back to me with the cost of WW2, with dollar amounts adjusted to 2007 dollars, and then tabulate the cost of post-war occupation for Germany for say, until at least the 1970s – again, adjusted to 2007 dollars) and THEN tell me again how we are leaching the life out of treasury. So far, we haven’t had to bury tens or even hundreds of thousands of our own, nor have we needed to build dozens or scores of aircraft carriers and ten thousands of various aircraft to operate from them en masse, or the score-thousand tanks and halftracks and 2.5t trucks and all the food to keep them boys fed… nor have we needed to dump over 40% of our GDP as well as foregoing travel and food (nod if you know what “Meatless Mondays” and “Victory Gardens” are!) for the sake of the war effort.

  56. seekeronos says:

    “— A resolution support pal does not make a war. —”
    Actually, the resolution cleared the way for Bush to legally commence hostilities against the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein (building upon the spin generated partly off of intelligence – some of which was outdated or no longer functional – and also spun from valid fears concerning Saddam’s intentions to _acquire_ working WMD technology).
    Such as it is, this resolution voiced the represented will of the American people to support the President and his administration’s plan to conduct war.
    In short, the 11th-grade civics lesson here in US Government is:
    – Congress grants authority to wage war and allocates funds for it from the federal budget;
    – The POTUS and the Executive Branch exercise that granted authority to fight the war and command the necessary resources to get it done.
    Get it? Congress doesn’t fight wars nor does it have any executive oversight over the conduct of the war, but it can cut off funding for a war.
    As a constitutional snag, I believe that Congress _could_ rescind the Executive authority to conduct the war… since technically, the POTUS did not formally ask for a declaration of war. That point however, is quite unnecessary: according to the US Constitution, Congress holds the purse-strings. A vote to terminate funding is therefore not subject to executive veto, and would effectively eviscerate the war effort.

  57. rwilymz says:

    “Serbia is in peace now,along with the Balkans”
    They are also occupied. Pre-emptive wars for regime change have a tendency to require occupiers.
    “Not a single American soldier was lost”
    Violating the tactical rule book, pissing off the allies for calling an audible in the middle of a war plan, and forcing others to take the brunt of American command cowardice. Yes. It was in all the papers.
    “and if that the way the Democrats will trun Iraq into then by all means do so!”
    How many more Chinese Embassies you think the US can bomb without the Chinese doing more than filing a protest?
    “By what terms is Bush an abject failure of a leader?? You are still asking!”
    Yes. “Failure”. Not “I don’t like what he does”.
    “lets see if we go into a war with a nation that had no WMD’s at all”
    But they did at one point. And then they disappeared. Really, dimbulb, **this** was in the papers too. 6,500 UN-stored chemical warheads don’t just disappear. Where’d they go?
    …and if you are going to claim that they never existed in the first place, then you’d better tell Hans Blix, because his report to the UN called them “missing”.
    “had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack”
    the only people who said they did are the foreign policy critics who invented that as an assertion by the US. The US never said that.
    “mismanaged every aspect of the subsecuent occupation ”
    You SAY “he” mismanaged, but you don’t say HOW.
    Unsupported allegations are just that.
    “Or it’s getting a blow job in the oval office the only thing that qualifies as “failure of leadership” in your book?”
    Clinton’s problems had more to do with attempting to subvert the legal system than with whom he involved in it. You seriously need to grab a history book and learn something about the law if you want to be a valid participant in any of these discussions.
    “On the other hand tens of thousands of people have lost their lives, millions have been displaced, Iran HAS BEEN EMPOWERED BY OUR IRAN INVASION”
    You keep SAYing these and never supporting them.
    “Please pal, do research the subject a bit more before you comment”
    “Pal”, I work in this field. And have for every prez since Carter. You are seriously barking up the wrong tree here.
    “Tell me pal, do you take Democrat incompetence in silence???”
    Find me some Democratic incompetence. I work for these people. They are self-serving, they are rapacious, they are arrogant and egotistical and often blindly ambitious. And they are very, very, very good at these things. That’s not “inept” in my book, that’s not “incompetent”. What it **often** is comprises things I don’t personally like. And sometimes that’s even criminal. …and I point you to the LA guy with the freezer full of cold cash.
    But I am not so dishonest — as apparently you are — to equivocate what I simply don’t like into “incompetence”. The reason there are two means of describing these things — “personal preference” and “incompetence” — is because they **are** two different things. Come down off your cross, you insufferably self-righteous crybaby, you are not the final arbiter on all matters political.
    “So when the Democrats are back in full control do apply your “suck it up logic” on yourself OK?”
    Fine with me. I’ll still have my job, and it’ll be because the US will still be employing the same style of foreign policy as it has for the 27 years I’ve been working in it. You know: the kind that goes barging into other nations for reasons we find compelling and that those nations find high-handed and bossy.
    Funny, though, even though both Republicans and Democrats do the same things, democratic voters only like it when the bossy, intrusive foreign policy comes wrapped in the staggeringly smarmy political shinola.
    “…declared that the war was going to last for five months, and we are still there 6 years after…”
    The war was over in seven weeks. What’s going on now is called “occupation”. If you’re going to talk about military doctrine, then use military terminology to describe it, and use that military terminology correctly.
    “pleace feel free to correct me if I am wrong.”
    Oh no he didn’t!!!
    “Bush designed the strategy to invade Iraq”
    Incorrect. War plans are created by military strategists [i.e., military theoreticians, typically captains and majors] in various unified commands serving the US and whose responsibility is given to covering US responses to specific parts of the world. It is from the range of prepared plans that the elected political leaders [read: the White House] choose the option they like best.
    It’s done this way because we are not a military dictatorship, and we don’t want to become one.
    “created the momentum”
    What does this mean?
    “went to Congress, requested Congress”
    Requested Congress do **what**?
    “went to the U.N. demanded of the U.N. took out the inspectors”
    HUGELY incorrect.
    The US went to the UN all throughout 2002 to request just the opposite in fact. With the US now trying to take on active anti-US “terrorists”, we needed the troops we had devoted to Iraqi “containment”. But to do that, we needed the UN to release us from our obligation to “contain” Hussein, or to replace US troops with, probably, French troops. France said “Non!”
    So the US said, alright, then since we signed the cease fire we are authorized to enforce the cease fire with force if we find a violation of it. And the Iraqi refusal to allow UN inspectors was a violation. And we started mobilizing.
    So Iraq allowed in the inspectors. Phwew!
    Oh, but not all was rosy in Appeasementland, for the 1991 Gulf War Cease Fire was veritably Versaillean in its construct, and if Hussein so much as looked cross-eyed it was a violation. And lo and behold, Hans Blix found within the first week of tramping around Iraq that somehow all those chemical weapons the UN found, catalogued and stored in Iraqi warehouses between ’92 and ’98 were gone.
    Darn the luck! Iraq broke the cease fire!! In full view of the UN, too.
    So … “Gil” … where’d those 6,500 chemical warheads go?
    “appointed the Generals to conduct the invasion”
    They were already in place at Centcom.
    “gave the power to people like Donald Rumsfeld to “manage” the occupation”
    That’s their job[s].
    “dictated the terms of the duration of the occupation”
    Um … dude, the whole deal about military occupation is that the nation with the military doing the occupying dictates terms. An occupation without military dictates is more like a frat party.
    And if you think the terms in Iraq are onerous, you shoulda seen the terms we had when we occupied Japan and Germany. Why, why, it woulda made your tear-ducts go into overtime just keeping up with the moral outrage of it all.
    “If some one invades a country for the wrong reason”
    It is **always** the “wrong reason” to those who don’t like war, or the guy who fights it. Crack a history book. A *good* one. The Mex-Am War was reviled and mocked, even by Polk’s party. The critics of the Span-Am War were all for waiting three-quarters of a century for forensic science to progress to the point that it could definitively ascertain wither the Maine sunk, and didn’t spare any ink [or tears] in denouncing American bloodlust. Even during WWII the nazi-sympathizers virtually outnumbered everyone else, particularly in the northeast, and they didn’t shut up about it until they were gang-beaten in back alleys enough times.
    “makes a mess of the occupation we are supposed to do what in your book?”
    How is the occupation a “mess”?
    I know how **I** think it’s a mess, but then I know what I’m talking about. And how **I** think it’s a mess has nothing to do with what the typical crybaby critic claims is the “mess” … mostly because those crybaby critics do *not* know what they’re talking about. For you see, those critics learned what they know of military matters by watching “Saving Private Ryan” and tearing up over it, and not from actually practicing it or working in the field.

  58. Mike Filancia says:

    rwily–the ignorance is entirely your own. While not all Sunnis are members of AL Quaeda, Al Quaeda is composed of Sunnis–let’s see your evidence to the contrary, which you can’t produce, because there isn’t any. And let’s see the hard evidence (I’m not talking about neo con lies–just because the State Dept says something doesn’t make it true)) of Iran arming Shias in Iraq or making IEDs–and for that matter, why wouldn’t they? We’ve invaded their neighbor after supporting a Sunni dictator there who tortured and murdered Shias for years, not to mention the US funded Iraq’s war aganist Iran which killed half a million or more. Would you expect the US to sit by if Canada or Mexico was invaded? But a complete disassociation from facts/reality is just par for the course for you Reich-nuts. How do you all function on a day to day basis if you are for all purposes mentally incompetent?

  59. Mike Filancia says:

    And rwily, while you’re at it, read the GAO’s report that violence in Iraq is down due in great part to the fact that ethnic cleansing and migration have eliminated the “reason” for said violence. Can your feeble brain take that in?

  60. gil says:

    mike filancia.
    Serbia is not occupied. Please research before you talk.
    Not a single soldier was lost in the Balkans war. I could care less if any rules were broken. An Americansoldier’s life is worth more than your real or imagined rules pal. How many “rules” have we broken in Iraq. What a lame excuse to minimize the accomplishment of going to war in Serbia and having CERO casualties. That pal, is COMPETENCE. What you have in Iraq in case your brain is so far to the Right you lost track of where logic will tell you, is called INCOMPETENCE.
    You talk about Chinese embasies as an excuse to what ??? Let’s do this pal. If you are so tough on a war that produce no casualties, and has an entire region of the world in peace….. Then wahy do you give Bush and the Republicans every brake in the book when it comes to Iraq???? HYPOCRICY MAIBE?????
    By the way, a pilot attacking the wrong target (The Chinese embassy) makes it in your “considerate and fair” opinion the fault of the Democrats? What a reasonable man you are!!!
    If what we have now is an “occupation” pal, then why does Bush, the Republicans, and every news organisation calls it the “war in Iraq” … Or is your “occupation” some how a lame excuse for a war. We have an “occupation” where millions of Iraqi people have fled the country, tens of thousands of Iraqi people have lost their lives, thousands of American soldiers have lost their, and almost a trillion Dollars have been spent.
    Have you ever heard of INTELLECTUAL HONESTY??? You do need a BIG amount of it pal.
    Remar after remark you made in response to my post shows a complete disregard for the truth, a lack of knowledge of what you are talking about, but most of all an absolute display of INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.
    I am not going to go answering your points one by one because I don’t have the time. I gave you answers to the first five points to show you clearly how much of a fraud your ideas are.
    If you want to debate at least call a spade a spade. A pilot bombs an embassy by mistake, and that’s the fault of the Democrats!!! A war that has cero casualties among our soldiers is not an accomplishment because “we broke the rules” !!! , Iraq has something to do with the 9-11 attacks, and Serbia is occupied !!! Yes pal, but is occupied by the Serbs…. They live there you know.
    OH, and the five month remark as to the extent of the war in Iraq was in reference to the war AND OCCUPATION. If you don’t mind, go to google ask for “five moths occupation remark Donald Rumsfeld” and plese consult any of the many web sites that will INSTRUCT YOU on the subject.
    This is my final response to you. I can’t debate with a person that still believes that Iraq and Sadam had something to do with the 9-11 attacks. PAL, EVEN DICK CHENEY AND GEORGE BUSH HAVE ADMITED PUBLICALY THAT IRAQ AND SADAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 9-11 ATTACKS. You are frankly creating your own bull shit as you go along, and when that happens, I just let your kind be and continue to live in your own make-believe little world.
    Have a nice one…. OH, and Santa is a Stalin-lover Commi because he wares a red outfit.

  61. rwilymz says:

    “the ignorance is entirely your own”
    Opposite Day again? So soon??
    “While not all Sunnis are members of AL Quaeda, Al Quaeda is composed of Sunnis”
    Indeed. So that makes them equivocable … how?
    All Fords are cars; does that make all cars Fords? That’s what you are insinuating.
    “let’s see the hard evidence … of Iran arming Shias in Iraq or making IEDs”
    Um, son, I work in this area. And I’m simply talking *here* about what is reported in the press.
    For your information, “IEDs” are improvised — as the term implies — in the field. From stock manufactured explosives. Iran doesn’t provide IEDs.
    “…and for that matter, why wouldn’t they?”
    Ahhhh. Trying to cover your bases. “They *aren’t*!! But sure, they probably are at that…”
    You’re a funny guy.
    And keep your “high government conspiracy” claims to yourself, Agent Mulder.
    .
    “We’ve invaded their neighbor …”
    The same neighbor that Persian Iran has hated and warred with for roughly 5,000 years in various incarnations…
    “…after supporting a Sunni dictator there who tortured and murdered Shias for years…”
    WE supported that dictator? In what terms? And to what effect?
    And didn’t I just hear you say we invaded that neighbor? Or was it another neighbor you’re talking about now?
    “…not to mention the US funded Iraq’s war aganist Iran which killed half a million or more.”
    Right. Now, can you follow the bouncing ball and piece these parts together into a coherent kindergarten-level understanding of what’s going on?
    We supported Iraq so much that we invaded it. That either makes us ADD with an attention span of a gnat [e.g., a modern American "liberal"], or it makes our “support” entirely superficial and RealPolitik.
    If the former — and I’m not going to argue against that — then every nation has the capacity to bamboozle us with flashing lights and weak-kneed promises. If the latter, then … frankly … it’d be suicide to stand against us.
    Or [and here's a possibility] it might be a little of both depending on the personality of the guy sitting in the leather-bound chair in the roundish room. During some presidencies, we are subject to the flattery and cajolery of the calculating weenie dictators in three-fourths of the world; while in others we draw lines in the sand and declare “we’re tired of lies and intrigue which only make us look stupid for believing them.”
    “Would you expect the US to sit by if Canada or Mexico was invaded?”
    To the degree you’re trying to tangentialize: hardly. But then, as I said, I work in this area and I know firsthand what we’re likely to do if the continent gets invaded. Also what we’re likely to do if there is a civil war in other parts of the continent.
    But, then, I tend to speak from knowledge and experience, and not from knee-jerk conspiracy hypotheses. I can’t even, in good conscience, call your twaddle a “theory”; it simply doesn’t have enough cohesion.
    To the degree you’re attempting to draw a parallel, you’re way, way, wa-a-a-a-ay off base. Iran and Iraq do not, and have never had, a peaceful relationship. Iraq is Arab; Iran is Persian. Persians hate Arabs, who return the favor and hate them back. Persia was part of the Babylonian empire; Babylon was part of the Persian ditto. When Arabs unified under Islam, one of the first places they conquered was Greek-ruled Persia. When the Arabs demanded the new religion supplant the Zoroastranism common in Persia, the Persians accepted the off-brand flavor of islam: Shi’a. … just to piss off the 98% Sunni Arabs.
    Equivocating the relationship of Iran and Iraq to the relationship between the US and, say, Canuckia, is preposterous. But, then, you’d have to know what you’re talking about in order to understand that. And you don’t.
    “How do you all function on a day to day basis if you are for all purposes mentally incompetent?”
    How do WHO “all” function? Exactly how many of me do you think there are?
    Quick: how many fingers am I holding up right now?

  62. gil says:

    rwilymz.
    “Where does the 6,500 war heads go?”
    Word has it that they are sitting next to your 50 billion Dollars cost of the war in Iraq.
    Hey rwilmz or wherever you call yourself. I do not appreciate beeing lied to. You DO NOT WORK IN THE FIELD OF FOREIGN RELATIONS. If you do, please tell us where, and give me a phone where I can verify your employment, or shut up.
    NO ONE THAT WORKS IN THE FOREIGN FIELD believes that Sadam was responsible for the 9-11 attacks, or that 6,500 “war heads” simply were sent to Syria right before Sadam was attacked by us. Say, Mr. “smart” guy, you think that Sadam had the so called 6,500 war heads for what then?? I can see Sadam just about now. We are about to be invaded by the Americans !!!! let’s send our best weapons to another country, so that the Americans can kick the shit out of us!!!!
    I like you “logic” pal….. Now wander you are asking me for “proof” of mismanagement in Iraq. You most be brain damaged with all due respect. The rest of your post is frankly garbage that i really can’t answer. As the other nut Mike Filancia, you guys make up your own bull shit to “debate”, and therefore you people are a waste of time.
    Say guy, the 6,500 WMD’s that Syria has now…… Why don’t we “pre-empt the Syrians from using them against us, and Israel ????
    This is what I call making up your own “logic” as you go along. Sadam goes to the trouble of making 6,500 WMD’s , defies the power of America and the world….. Only to be attacked because of it, and as a “logical” reaction he sends the WMD’s Sadam NOW NEEDS MORE THAN EVER TO PREVENT AN ATTACK …. To Syria, and stand in front of the mighty American Army right outside his borders with a bunch of outdated tanks !!!!! Man, what a “brilliant” strategy!!!!!
    Then the Bush Administration that went to war to stop the use of the so called 6,500 WMD’s can find them, but when informed by people like you that the WMD’s were sent to Syria ….. Their reaction is not to do anithing about it!!!!! So now we have Syria, next to Israel and a sworn enemy of Israel and the U.S. sitting with 6,500 WMD’s that Sadam was keeping to fight off an invasion of HIS country (I presume that’s what you have weapons for) but Bush now does nothing!!!! OH, and that’s not a problem with you, and your “logic” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Saddam had 6,500 WMD’s to send to Syria when invaded, and Syria now has 6,500 WMD’s, but we don’t do shit about it.
    Like I said. You are a waste of my time.
    Have a nice life.
    And you are an “expert” in foreign relations!!!!!

  63. rwilymz says:

    “Serbia is not occupied. Please research before you talk.”
    The region of Serbia nominally called “Kosovo” is. NATO peacekeepers, of which a large part are American.
    The region of the “peaceful” Balkans called Bosnia is patrolled by UN peacekeepers, of which a significant number are American.
    “I could care less if any rules were broken”
    Convenient.
    “An Americansoldier’s life is worth more than your real or imagined rules pal.”
    My Lai, anyone?
    “How many “rules” have we broken in Iraq.”
    None that are comparable.
    “What a lame excuse to minimize the accomplishment of going to war in Serbia and having CERO casualties. That pal, is COMPETENCE.”
    Good thing you aren’t in charge of the military. We’d be a laughing stock.
    “You talk about Chinese embasies as an excuse to what”
    Do you remember the reason we bombed the Chinese Embassy?
    “wahy do you give Bush and the Republicans every brake in the book when it comes to Iraq?”
    You have no clue who I’m giving “brakes” to or why. But I do understand the subject of military doctrine about 18 orders of magnitude better than you.
    “By the way, a pilot attacking the wrong target (The Chinese embassy) makes it in your “considerate and fair” opinion the fault of the Democrats? What a reasonable man you are!!! ”
    Wasn’t a “pilot”. Cruise missile. Wasn’t the “wrong” target, either. It was the target identified by the [very limited] target acquisistion allowed the US. By … it’s CinC. Now why did the CinC severely limit the targeting intel of US forces in the field …?
    That’s the million dollar question.
    Got an answer?
    “If what we have now is an “occupation” pal, then why does Bush, the Republicans, and every news organisation calls it the “war in Iraq””
    Because neophytes like you don’t understand the difference.
    “I am not going to go answering your points one by one because I don’t have the time”
    You also don’t have the ability.
    But dang, that knee of yours sure is doing the spasmodic dance, ainnit? Why learn what your talking about when doing knee-jerk denunciation is so much more fun, eh?
    “If you don’t mind, go to google ask for “five moths occupation remark Donald Rumsfeld””
    I do mind, actually, because I don’t spend an awful lot of time listening to politicians. I just work for them. Don’t make me have to listen to them as well.
    “This is my final response to you.”
    Sure.
    “I can’t debate with a person that still believes that Iraq and Sadam had something to do with the 9-11 attacks.”
    Who might that be? Certainly not me. Not after your heartfelt beratements on “INTELLECTUAL HONESTY”. There is not a single iota of support in anything I’ve said — ever — to corroborate this latest whining mewl of yours. And there’s a lot I’ve typed. G’head; look.
    “I do not appreciate beeing lied to.”
    Then don’t talk with Gil. Oh, wait, you *are* “Gil”. It’s hard to keep you sockpuppets straight.
    “You DO NOT WORK IN THE FIELD OF FOREIGN RELATIONS.”
    Didn’t say I did.
    I don’t appreciate being presumptuously defined by those with a limited ability to comprehend the world around them.
    “NO ONE THAT WORKS IN THE FOREIGN FIELD believes that Sadam was responsible for the 9-11 attacks”
    Find me saying he was. Or admit that you’re an overmatched liar.
    “you think that Sadam had the so called 6,500 war heads for what then??”
    Technically, they were under UN “control”. But they were still in Iraq when the UN was not.
    Any of this ring a bell?
    Or did you skip listening to the Blix reports when it stopped giving the “US stay out” schpiel?
    “The rest of your post is frankly garbage that i really can’t answer”
    Lack of knowledge does that to you, yes.
    “Say guy, the 6,500 WMD’s that Syria has now…”
    That’s one possibility. The other is that they were used as the explosive base for IEDs — the ones that “Iran supplies”.
    “Sadam goes to the trouble of making 6,500 WMD’s , defies the power of America and the world….. Only to be attacked because of it”
    You really don’t pay attention, do you?
    Iraq’s chemical weapons predate the Gulf War. The 6,500 in question were found by the UN between ’92 and ’98, stored for destruction that never occured because Iraq kicked the UN out of the country in late ’98, and when the UN went back and looked up all those old warehouses they had stored the chemical shells in, poof, they were gone.
    Whoda guessed, eh?
    “Then the Bush Administration that went to war to stop the use of the so called 6,500 WMD’s …”
    Actually, it’s very very unlikely that any of them would have remained viable. But then … you don’t know what you’re talking about, and so you’re creating some farcical Hollywood-version of “neocon boogeyman” to strawman against.
    “OH, and that’s not a problem with you, and your “logic” !”
    The first thing you’ve gotten right. …your strawmanning notwithstanding.

  64. templar knight says:

    Gil, you need to leave, you’re in WAY over your head, and you’re looking like a complete kook. Go read a book, or something, cause you are worthless as a debater.

  65. rwilymz says:

    Gil and/or Mike Foccacia — to the degree you are different people:
    you have yet to answer these questions:
    How is US foreign policy “inept”; how is the prez directing same “incompetent”.
    Keep in mind the meanings of both words when you are giving your answers. ‘Inept’ means without skill or clumsy. ‘Incompetent’ means without ability.
    An inept individual might be competent … just not very pretty while doing what he does.
    Keep also in mind that “discussion”, which you “two” purport to be attempting, does not allow for axiomatic “truths” to be leveled without challenge. You assert ineptitude, you point it out — in detail. You claim incompetence, you provide just as many details.
    Now I’ve indulged you with the background reality — just as I’ve indulged many others before you. And what I’ve gotten in response from you is presumption, more/less deliberate disingenuity, equivocative bullshit, flights of extreme fancy and very acrobatic point-dodging.
    It’s your turn. Put up or shut up.
    How is US foreign policy “inept”; how is the prez directing same “incompetent”.

  66. rwilymz says:

    Hello, boy[s].
    Care to rejoin? Or are you having trouble pulling a cut-n-paste response from your script?

  67. mike filancia says:

    rwily–I feel like I’m wasting my time, but here goes. Sunni and Shia Muslims have central and opposing beliefs that have led them to fight and kill each other at times. What about this do you not understand? Members of Al Quaeda belong to the Sunni division of Islam. There’s no debate here. Again what don’t you understand about this? Why do you think there has been so much ethnic cleansing in Iraqi neighborhoods, you idiot?
    Inept policy: No planning for after the invasion? How about disbanding the Iraqi army so that they became SUNNI insurgents, yes, killing US soldiers and now we are giving them $$$. How about destroying Iraq’s infrastructure and still not replacing it? How about claiming certain knowledge re weapons of mass destruction and ooops, there aren’t any! How about alienating much of the rest of the world especially after the shame of Abu Ghraib? How about the billions of tax dollars that have been stolen–still no accountability! How about Chimpy McFlightsuit on the deck of that carrier a couple of YEARS ago saying “Mission Accomplished”? How about not getting Bin Laden when we had the chance? How about letting the Taliban regroup to the point where they may retake Afghanistan? It might be easier for you to come up with something that smacks of basic competence that Bush HAS accomplished.
    Again, Iran is next door to Iraq, hence its neighbor. Leaving aside all your meaningless digressions, please tell me why ANY country would think it good policy to sit idly by when the neighbor is invaded–yes, INVADED–it is not our country, we invaded Iraq. AND because it is not our country, we OCCUPY it. We also SUPPORTED Sadaam in his war aginst Iraq, a fact many reich nuts seem to have forgotten when they made out Sadaam to be worse than Satan.
    IEDs–yes, I KNOW they are improvised but so is the “intelligence” by unnamed sources that claim, without any evidence or going on the record, that the components are made in Iran and therefore we should bomb Iran right away. I guess these are the same people who are claiming that the fact that Iran held US citizens as hostages back in the 70s means we are justified in bombing them now–conveniently overlooking the FACT that the US got rid of Iran’s DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader (I know this doesn’t hold much water for reich nuts whose hero bush was installed in office by the Supreme Court) and put in the Shah who routinely tortured and murdered his enemies. These people also don’t appear to be bothered by the fact that Israel hasn’t come clean about its nuclear weaponry. No problem with the double standard.
    “You all” refers in general to that disturbingly large number of reich nuts who continue, along with that sociopath Bush, to exist in a fact-free environment, to deny realty in a fashion that qualifies you for a mental institution.
    And really, did you think ANYONE would buy your “I work in this area” bs??

  68. rwilymz says:

    “I feel like I’m wasting my time”
    Unless and until you can speak knowledgeably, yes you are. I would agree with this.
    “Sunni and Shia Muslims have central and opposing beliefs that have led them to fight and kill each other at times”
    Eh. Not really. Their “opposing” beliefs that created their blood feud is based on tribal affiliations which manifested themselves about twenty minutes after Mohammed died. Shi’a muslims are those who were related to Mohhamed [and, now, their allies] who believed that the “Mohammedan Kingdom” as it was called for centuries ought to be inherited in traditional Arab patrilinear fashion, and the Sunni muslims are those who weren’t related to Mohammed and who believed that the throne ought to be inherited by Abu Bakr, the best general in the force. The chief proponent of this belief was Abu Bakr.
    Go figure.
    The doctrinal differences are minimal and tend to revolve around the “true” leadership.
    “Members of Al Quaeda belong to the Sunni division of Islam.”
    Never said otherwise. What about that don’t you understand?
    What YOU said, on the other hand, equivocated the two entirely, which is academically false.
    Simply put, dimbulb, Sunni =/= al Qaida.
    Al Qaida == Wahhabi sect Sunni, who are — to ground it in terms more understandable in western religious features — a “latter day saints” Sunni. Which is why I said, above, that your equivocation of Sunni == al Qaida was comparable to Protestant == Mormon.
    That is not the case.
    Please stop trying to make it so.
    “Inept policy: No planning for after the invasion”
    There *was* planning for after the invasion.
    Not perfect planning by any means, but planning nonetheless.
    “How about disbanding the Iraqi army so that they became SUNNI insurgents”
    Now you’re applying that vast, vast reservoir of yours for good instead of for knee-jerk denunciation.
    “How about claiming certain knowledge re weapons of mass destruction and ooops, there aren’t any!”
    But there *were*. No matter how many times you try to whistle past the graveyard on this you are NOT going to get around it. The UN found 6,500 chemical shells before ’98, locked them up in Iraq, and when the UN went back in ’02, they were gone.
    So where’d they go?
    “How about alienating much of the rest of the world especially after the shame of Abu Ghraib?”
    Again and still, the conditions in Iraq are are veryveryvery tame version of what we implemented in Germany and japan. You aren’t going to get around that one either.
    Now: do people predisposed to a faux-sterile worldview understand that these things happen as a matter of course during war? Nope. So … what does that mean?
    Does it mean that the US, in doing things that EVERY nation has done in EVERY war is to be singled out for approbation thereto? or does it mean that the bulk of those who comment upon it are grossly naive?
    I believe the latter.
    “How about the billions of tax dollars that have been stolen–still no accountability!”
    Before you can have “theft” you must have evidence that someone took something, deliberately, for the purposes of taking it. At this point, it is simply misplaced.
    However, in order to salve your tender ego, I’ll allow as how “theft” is one of the possibilities.
    “How about Chimpy McFlightsuit …”
    And you expect to garner any kind of credibility?
    “How about not getting Bin Laden when we had the chance?”
    When was that?
    Oh,yes. Tora Bora, when we didn’t have enough troops for a blocking force, because the ones we were Congressionally allowed to use were either:
    1] tied down in babysitting Li’l Kim and the Pompadours, or
    2] babysitting Hussein
    both under UN mandate.
    Yeah, I feel for ya. That’s the way things go sometimes.
    “How about letting the Taliban regroup to the point where they may retake Afghanistan?”
    Grossly unlikely.
    The Taliban is one of roughly a dozen Afghan tribes with outside influence attempting to assert control over the rest of those tribes. That is the historically proven wrong way to go about conquering A’stan.
    “please tell me why ANY country would think it good policy to sit idly by when the neighbor is invaded”
    In the case of Iraq/Iran, Iran is privately rubbing their hands in glee that we invaded. If you don’t know why, then you’d better do a brief perusal of roughly 5,000 years of Mesopotamian History juxtaposed against their most recent direct involvement and then put yourself in the shoes of the Persians who could not defeat their Prime Number One foe with twice the military and better equipment inside a decade.
    “We also SUPPORTED Sadaam in his war aginst Iraq”
    Yeah? And?
    He served our purposes at the time. Would you expect us to do any different?
    Why? For “noble” purposes? For *>gag<* ***moral*** purposes? “Oh, Hussein was a Baddy von Badnik, we should never support such people!!” Congrats. You’ve just cut off 3-4ths of the world. You’ve now blinded us in two eyes, two ears, and amputated all but our left leg.
    “overlooking the FACT that the US got rid of Iran’s DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader …and put in the Shah who routinely tortured and murdered his enemies”
    Ahem! Iran pre-shah “democratically” elected leader was elected pretty much the same way Hussein was; the Shah, for his part, was in fact a tyrant, but he was a tyrant that gave those Iranians not actively engaged in revolt prosperity, education and m/l western rights.
    Oh, but, right. There *are* those the Shah was being mean and grumpy to. You know them today as the Ayatollah Khameini, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, and their merry band of yuk-it-ups.
    “No problem with the double standard.”
    Nope. Not at all. This is a matter of trust and survival. Do you trust the Iranians under the Ayatollahs? or Israel? If ‘neither’, then fine. If you are like most Americans, however, you trust Israel’s motives re: nuclear weaponry more than you do A’jad’s — by roughly 18 orders of magnitude.
    “to deny realty in a fashion that qualifies you for a mental institution”
    So when are you going?
    So far, in just the one mealy-mouthed message I’m responding to here and now, you’ve rewritten several thousand years worth of middle eastern history, denied any familiarity with UN findings, entered into countless equivocations and presumptions about details of US policy that you know nothing of except the most superficial of aspects, professed a common, if suicidal, tendency to believe US foreign policy is built upon altruism instead of American self-serving, and issued several instances of sanctimonious faux-righteous name-calling toward [usually] nameless people you appear to consider more of a threat to our survival than those who have actually threatened it.
    That is some massive messianiah you got going for you, there, Jesus. Gonna be fitted for another cross soon?
    “And really, did you think ANYONE would buy your “I work in this area” bs??”
    They ought to. They pay me for it.

  69. Fred Beloit says:

    Yeah sure, talking points memo, I don’t think so many times, wise guy. How “bout flight sweet issue in Turkmonaslam? You try to bunk me busta, no fouling. That why I name you Plonk like tastes cheap wine, Mr wino. You trying pull flannel over gils’ lids every time. That is not going to fly or run up a flag pole for me. Just wanted you to know what you deal with. Be so careful next time you try show off. gil make chop onions out of you.

  70. rwilymz says:

    …yeah, I thought not.