Donald is doing a heckuva job...

Okay, you have to understand that when Rumsfeld suggests it's the military's fault we're losing in Iraq because lord knows, this Administration has given them everything they possibly could, Rumsfeld is actually supporting the troops.

Because only people who thought that the Administration was nuts for going into Iraq, or people who thought it was perfectly obvious that this Administration had no plan for victory in Iraq--those are the only people who are not supporting the troops.

And when Generals say they didn't have enough troops, they are also not supporting the troops.

Let's focus on supporting the troops, okay?

that's Mr Donald "Best SecDef Evah" Rumsfeld, to you, Mr Drum

So where does General Batiste tell us that, off-camera, he told Rumsfeld that he needed more troops? Or is Rumsfeld supposed to read his mind?

Click the link!

He's just another pathetic liberal General who wants us to all be killed and wear burkas.

Betcha he doesn't look so manly in a flight suit

and that is why he quit.

Quitter!

We can only Thank Jesus that these traitors and the press didn't say anything before Nov. 2004. At least we can all Live Free until 2008.

Or is Wolfowitz perhaps to blame for not passing along the General's request?

Remeber that this guy is loyal enough to the Commander in Chief (and the military culture) that he doesn't want to mention the details of the dispute ... and he STILL thinks the administration is a joke.

God only knows what sort of SNAFU we'll get when we put guys on the Mexican border. I would be horrified, but not surprised, if some string of Rumsfeldian blunders led to our nuking Mexico City.

Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004, and then turned down a promotion and resigned in 2005 in protest over Rumsfeld's handling of the war, has a different story to tell:

CLICK THE LINK. ALWAYS CLICK THE LINK. Batiste once said great things about Rumsfeld but decided to change his mind because he wouldn't be promoted due to his incompetence in Iraq.

Link

"Just weeks before his troops left Iraq, the general had an opportunity to confront Mr. Rumsfeld publicly. The secretary, who was making a 2004 Christmas tour through Iraq, came to meet with him and take questions from his troops.

Gen. Batiste introduced Mr. Rumsfeld to his soldiers as a "man with the courage and conviction to win the war on terrorism.""

Hypocrite!

So where does General Batiste tell us that, off-camera, he told Rumsfeld that he needed more troops? Or is Rumsfeld supposed to read his mind?

Or is Wolfowitz perhaps to blame for not passing along the General's request?

Mmmmmm, that is some tasty stupidity there. Thanks!

Too many aspiring Steven Colberts here.

Apparently General Batiste suffered a failure of nerve when he was in the presence of Sec. Rumsfeld and the press. Only later, when he had retired, did he make his statement. Rumsfeld asked him a direct question which gave the general an opportunity to express himself in a way that would have gained national attention. Intimidation by the press is a lame express for loss of nerve.

Chain of command is everything to these guys. Its ingrained into them from the first day they enter West Point, and every guy with the priviledge to be born a year earlier gets to boss them around. It continues all the way through the ranks - you are subserviant to the guy with better lapel decorations, and those with lesser decorations are subserviant to you. Anyone who breaks with that finds they are no longer promoted and are driven out by the policy that removes people who aren't promoted.

They are taught chain of command is sacrosanct. They do not go around it, even for good reasons. It is the foundation of stability in the US military.

The fact that so many trolls don't understand how the military works drives home the point of how few of them would ever serve, even though they claim to "support the troops".

Dear Posted by: Al on May 15, 2006:

What's the "victory condition" again? We've already established there aren't WMD in Iraq? Or are you one of the "phantom WMD"ians who believe that there's a big convoy (like a Battlestar Galactica) of freighters FILLED with WMD floating in the fog made by their own fog-machine?

Mysticdog: Word. (Do they still say that?)

I wonder if General Batiste spends any sleepless nights pondering whether if he had just shown a little backbone to Rummy's face, he could have gotten enough troops, and perhaps saved many lives?

I wonder if perhaps Bush ponders the same?

Intimidation by the press is a lame express for loss of nerve.

If Gen. Batiste had spoken out publicly at the press conference, he would have been lambasted by the 101st Fighting Keyboardists for damaging our troops' morale at a time of war.

As always, it's "heads I win, tails you lose" with cowardly fucks like you, Mike Murray. Go fuck yourself.

Let’s suppose Rumsfeld had agreed in 2002 that it would take several hundred thousand troops in Iraq to maintain control of the country. If he had gone to Congress in 2002 and said “we will need 300,000 troops on the ground at a time when we invade Iraq, which is 150,000 more than we have, and they’ll need to rotate out, and we’ll need support troops, so let’s say we need to recruit and train another 500,000 active duty soldiers to protect us from Iraqi WMDs.”

If he had done that, Congress wouldn’t have approved the invasion. So he had to believe he could do it on 150,000 troops or he couldn’t play the game.

That’s what he meant when he said you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might wish to have.

That appears to be the real Al, using real Al's "click the link" catchphrase.

Al's reading of the article is completely off-base.

Batiste once said great things about Rumsfeld but decided to change his mind because he wouldn't be promoted due to his incompetence in Iraq.

This is a flat-out lie. First, he was not passed over for a promotion, but rather refused to accept it as a protest. From the article:

"Gen. Batiste stands out among the generals who have called for Mr. Rumsfeld to resign because he is the only one who served in a high position in the Pentagon and commanded troops in Iraq. He turned down a promotion and resigned last fall."

Second, the whole "used politically" argument was precisely about that statement:

"Gen. Batiste introduced Mr. Rumsfeld to his soldiers as a "man with the courage and conviction to win the war on terrorism." The general says he was disillusioned with Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership at the time, but felt he needed to pump up his soldiers who were in the final days of a grueling, bloody deployment.

After the speech, Mr. Rumsfeld, accompanied by reporters, met with Gen. Batiste in his plywood office, in the corner of one of Saddam Hussein's unfinished marble palaces. Mr. Rumsfeld asked the general whether he had been given everything he needed, Gen. Batiste recalls. Not wanting to discuss problems in front of the press, he says he deflected the question, by talking about his efforts to train Iraqi security forces.

...

Today Gen. Batiste says the encounter left him furious with Mr. Rumsfeld. "We had fought and argued about these issues internally ad nauseam and a decision had been made ... . You get what you get and do the best you can. I am not going to air our dirty laundry in public. That is our culture," he says. "It was an outrageous question and he knew I couldn't give him an honest answer in a public forum. I felt as though I had been used politically.""

He's specifically angry about being forced in public to discuss Rumsfeld's plans - he was used politically because he was a good military man and wouldn't air his disagreements with superiors in that setting.

Going over this post, I am becoming convinced that was just a more-convincing-than-usual Fake Al, and I've wasted my time. Eh.

Just to reiterate what has been stated above, it is ingrained in our military that you criticize in private but once the issue is decided, you follow your orders and keep your mouth shut in public.

Anybody who doesn't know this, doesn't know anything about the US military and should keep their goddamn mouths shut when thinking of criticizing our generals.

As always, it's "heads I win, tails you lose" with cowardly fucks like you

That could be a song!

There was nothing stopping the good general from giving an honest answer to Rumsfeld, except his own feelings about the press. Letting that get in the way of expressing the unvarnished truth to a superior's clear question is dishonorable, and does a disservice to the country he serves.

renato, there was nothing decided at all. The good general had no reason not to tell Rumsfeld the truth in response to his question. I know full well what's ingrained in the military regarding the press, but that doesn't mean you don't tell the truth to a superior when they ask for it.

Well, what kind of name is "Batiste" anyway? Isn't it some kind of Frenchy cajun name? I think that tells us all we need to know, doesn't it? He was probably ready to surrender as soon as he saw the first raghead with a weapon!

I guess that's (one of the many reasons) why I never joined the military. There's just NO WAY I could ever stand there and take that from anybody. The man asks me that question, I give him the honest answer, no matter who's listening.

The military has a different mindset that I just don't understand.

David W.

It's very easy to expect others to make heroic sacrifices.

There was nothing stopping the good general from giving an honest answer to Rumsfeld, except his

...loyalty to the civilian leadership and chain of command.

Letting that get in the way of expressing the unvarnished truth to a superior's clear question is dishonorable, and does a disservice to the country he serves.

So would you criticize your boss in public?

No? Fucking hypocrite. Go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw.

I loathe each and every one of you cowardly, dishonest right-wing fucktards. You don't hesitate to yell "traitor!" at everyone who questions the wisdom of the war, you allege they don't support the troops and that they want our soldiers to die.

But you have no problem questioning the loyalty of a general? FUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUUU.

If I had my way, I would send you and Professor Reynolds and Charles Johnson and every last one of you cowardly fuckwits to Baghdad. Only when you come back after 12 months would you be allowed to voice any opinion at all about the war, the generals, and the war criminals running our government.

God are you a bunch of loathesome, pathetic bastards.

The career military officers and career NCOs have a natural affinity for the authoritarian culture of the GOP, if not the specific policies advocated.

The military officers allowed the DOD to be used. And individual officers have much to answer for.

One solution is to vastly increase training about military theory. The current training pipeline is heavy on corporate management practices while leaving out training about military theory. Also, officers should be tested as part of their consideration for promotion. Ignorant officers shouldn't be promoted.

Yes, Al, it's everyone's fault but the people in charge. Amyone criticizing anything should be blamed because they always have an axe to grind, or their uncle voted for Clinton or some such bullshit.

Apparently it's always okay to criticize the critics. Do you even give one shit about the good of the country?

Your use of the phrase "incompetence in Iraq" is particularly sweet -- but is it as sweet as George Bush's ass?

No fair Kevin, where does it say that Batiste grabbed George W. Bush by the lapels and shook him and shouted into his stupid monkey face that he needs more troops in Iraq? Huh? Where does it say that?

I wish these trolls would shut their traps and put their boots on the ground. I wince when I see a listing of a 19 year old american life wasted due to the incompetence and arrogance of this indefensible administration. A visit to a veterans hospital would break the heart of all but the most callous and deluded of idealogues. That wiesel Bush should be forced to work as an orderly in such a hellish, hopeless place.

I love the smell of liberal angst in the morning.

renato exemplifies the unhinged mentality of the left and clearly demonstrates why '08 may be easier than we think.

I love the smell of liberal angst in the morning.

That smell is the puddle of urine pooling at your chickenhawk feet.

Gen. John Baptiste, on the other hand, is a decorated veteran and respected commander who put his ass on the line in Iraq.

I would hardly describe him as filled with "angst."

But a cage match between the two of you would certainly settle the question once and for all.

I wish these trolls would shut their traps and put their boots on the ground. I wince when I see a listing of a 19 year old american life wasted due to the incompetence and arrogance of this indefensible administration. A visit to a veterans hospital would break the heart of all but the most callous and deluded of idealogues. That wiesel Bush should be forced to work as an orderly in such a hellish, hopeless place.

I'm a vet, and I live a mile up the road from Walter Reed hospital. Every week now, when I go to the local shopping district, I see another young guy or guys trying out his shiny new prosthetic arm or leg. I haven't asked any of them what they think of the war, nor would I; there's no etiquette for such a thing. But I'd give their views a lot more credence than those of any hundred of our gutless, blathering chickenhawks -- who are profoundly shameless.

Gen. John Baptiste, on the other hand, is a decorated veteran and respected commander who put his ass on the line in Iraq.

Partially true but he's also a political hack and a bureaucratic coward. If he thought his men were dying because rummy wasn't putting enough assets out there he had a responsibility to say so regardless of his career. Instead he waited until he was out and wanted to get a speaking tour going. He's no hero. He had a chance and he failed his men.

Kevin,

The link doesn't seem to work.

It is not that Iraq is the same as Vietnam. It is that there is the same arrogance and incompetence present in the leadership of both wars.

rdw: He makes it quite clear he requested more troops over and over within the chain of command and was refused.

You, on the other hand, are the political hack, who - judging from your abysmal spelling, grammar, and breathless rants - is typing this shit with one hand while masturbating with the other.

Carry on.

If he had done that, Congress wouldn’t have approved the invasion. So he had to believe he could do it on 150,000 troops or he couldn’t play the game.
That’s what he meant when he said you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might wish to have.
Posted by: anandine on May 15, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

While that may be true (and I doubt that it is) - I still say it's a bullshit argument.

If congress would not have approved of invasion if it involved 500k troops, then perhaps the argument for invasion wasn't convincing enough.

These idiots, congress included, wanted to take the short and easy path. From Rummy on down, nobody was comitted enough to protecting America to do this job right.

There's also an alternate argument to support the "few troops" drive:
The war wasn't really about WMD, or humanitarian action, or spreading democracy, but was about driving up commodities (oil) prices, and war-profiteering.

Partially true but he's also a political hack and a bureaucratic coward.

Well, your opinion on the matter certainly carries a lot of weight, General Wootten.

I'm sure if you'd been in the same situation back there in the Navy, you'd have spoken right up regardless of the situation, circumstances be damned? Right.

Sorry, I forgot to truncate the "wingnut edition" from my name back there.

osama_been_forgotten said, "These idiots, congress included, wanted to take the short and easy path. From Rummy on down, nobody was comitted enough to protecting America to do this job right."

To piggyback on that, I'll add that they wanted the "short and easy path" because it posed the least political risk. Remember it's all-politics, all-the-time for these people -- so they figured they'd go crashing in, kick Saddam's butt, and the rest would follow naturally. Anything more complex -- having to actually build a nation, too many troop casualties -- would create the risk of political blowback. They couldn't have that, so they determined to go in with as light a force as could be credible.

These courageous and patriotic generals deserve all of the humiliation and ignominy the Bush administration heaps upon them for obeying it in the first place. If they had any real balls, they would have attempted to arrest their commanders and/or refused to serve when ordered into Iraq.

Although, from a civilian perspective, it may seem like cowardice or negligence for a general (or any soldier) not to buck the chain of command in public, you need to be able to see it from a military perspective as well.

The chain of command exists so that a military unit has cohesion under fire. The chain of command is the nervous system that allows a unit to function, react, and survive even if parts of it get amputated during combat. From a squad leader to a division commander everyone respects the chain because without it men die under fire. Period. The civilians in this administration know this and exploit the military’s sense of duty to the chain of command in just the ways General Batiste is describing.

There is nothing this administration won’t try; there is no political expediency that is out of bounds, and the fact that the generals are finally speaking out in public shows how bad it is. Could the have done it sooner? Maybe. Are they cowards? Not from where I'm sitting (in the rear with the gear).

David W.

It's very easy to expect others to make heroic sacrifices.

Either you have a duty to tell the truth, or you do not. Which is it? Does it depend on having no one else there who is charged with communicating what our armed forced are doing to the citizens of this nation?

the article is worth reading in full.

another excerpt, immediately following the quote from Kevin Drum: Larry Di Rita, a senior aide to Mr. Rumsfeld, who also attended the meeting, says if Gen. Batiste "had something stuck in his craw, he had ample opportunity" to ask for private time with Mr. Rumsfeld. He says Mr. Rumsfeld blocked out two hours to spend with Gen. Batiste and his troops. "The opportunity was there if there was something he wanted to bring up."
...
During that meeting, Mr. Di Rita says Gen. Batiste was "upbeat" on progress in his area. "It was an extremely positive interaction," Mr. Di Rita says. He says he finds Gen. Batiste's recent criticism of the secretary "baffling."

Batiste also has considerable praise for Wolfowitz.

I'm sure if you'd been in the same situation back there in the Navy, you'd have spoken right up regardless of the situation, circumstances be damned? Right.

I'd have followed the tradition. I'd put my two cents in before hand and argue my case. Then when the decision is made I am bound to support it. I absolutely would not backstab afterwords. It's clear these generals all have their own agenda's which in a few cases is book deals and some others network consultant deals.

I've never quite found the attraction anyway. There are over 6,000 retired officers of flag ranks. 6 have disagreed. Only 6? You can't do better than 6?

It's also true I know a smidgen of history. In every war in the History of civilization there have been generals who've disagreed with their superiors. That's in every army, in every war, without fail.

The only thing that separates these gents from their retired peers is greed.

I guess that's (one of the many reasons) why I never joined the military. There's just NO WAY I could ever stand there and take that from anybody. The man asks me that question, I give him the honest answer, no matter who's listening.

Robert Earle: Those chain-of-command and don't-air-your-dirty-linen-in-public traditions are only possible because of reciprocal obligations of higher-ups to look out for, and keep tabs on, their troops. A general can't function if his subordinates are screwing him in public, and his feedback isn't organized; and troops won't function if they can't trust the hierarchy--they'll literally protect their asses and that's it.

Obviously, it doesn't always work the way it's supposed to, but that IS the basic model.

No one in the Bush administration is even remotely aware that they're required to come through on some levels for the troops, any more than a playstation owner feels some obligation to that Resident Evil guy.

It's ironic that they can plausibly present themselves as the champions of national defense. The Bush Administration has been to national defense what HIV is to immune defense.

So would you criticize your boss in public?

If asked to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth renato, yes.

What does the military have to say about it? Is there a clause in the code that says "thou shalt not ever say anything bad in the presence of the media"? Or is that merely an organizational custom? If so, it sets a bad example for the rest of us. The chain-of-command should never be abuse as an excuse to let the truth go unspoken.

another quote: Gen. Batiste's division returned to Germany in February 2005. Despite challenges, he believed he was winning the war in his region. "I thought we had turned a corner," he says today.

It appears that (from his account), although he complained about troop shortages and the fact that his own soldiers were repeatedly redeployed elsewhere in Iraq, he actually had sufficient troops to win.

anyway, read the whole thing.

That moment in front of the cameras when General Batiste received a direct question from Rumsfeld was the one great opportunity of Batiste's lifetime. If he had found the courage to tell the truth then it would have been aired nationally and might have made a difference. The article indicates that instead of being emboldened by the press he was intimidated at that critical moment. Only after retirement did he find his voice

He makes it quite clear he requested more troops over and over within the chain of command and was refused.

Every general in the field wants more troops. It's a fact of life. Having too many troops is like having too much money. It's not possible. You always want more.

The decision is always made at the top as to what is the correct balance for the needs of the mission. It is the job of the field generals to get as many troops and as many assets as possible and then to do the best with what has been allocated.

I don't question the good generals demand was sincere. I am saying his actions now are that of a political hack and a coward. By his own admission he didn't speak out when he had the opportunity.

Another comon thread he is most of these people are infantry/large army types who were either passed over or saw former mentors passed over. I think two have admitted to being bitter over the dismissal of Shinseski. Rummy was picked to do this needed transformtion because everyone knew these Generals would fight to stop it with all they had. What was needed was a brilliant administrator with prior defense dept experience, prior military experience, prior congressional experience, prior WH experience as well as a pair of very sharp elbows.

Shinseski was gone because Rummy knew immediately he'd block Rummy's reforms. Rummy did the same to a few other sacred cows. He cleaned house and installed the team he needed to complete the transformation.

These guys are naturally pissed. They lost decisively. This defense secretary is capable of and determined to do the job he was appointed to do and there's not a damn thing they can do to stop him. Baptiste backed down from Rummy for just that reason.

He's smarter than they are and they know it. He's smarter than the MSM and they know it. He's smarter than Bush and Bush knows it. Rummy is the man and he will be the man for as long as he chooses.

I understand why Batiste held his opinion, and I will grant him the benefit of the doubt because for one, we weren't there.

However, for me, I'm no respector of fools, and knowing full well the consequences of my actions I would've taken one for the team.
Because in 2004, I already would've known what kind of man Rumsfeld was/is, and there is no way my anti-asshole immune system would shut down for him.

Batiste also has considerable praise for Wolfowitz.

Then he deserves the firing squad.

I just happened to be one of those boots on the ground Vietnam vets; in my opinion, you could had given Westmoreland a million troops and it would not have made a difference. cleve

Either you have a duty to tell the truth, or you do not. Which is it?

Well...

When dealing with such thinks as troop levels and troop movements, there are very real reasons you don't speak openly in front of the press.

We can talk about this now - it's history. But at that moment in time, General Batiste's knowledge of his capabilities and limitations was relevent to the campaign.

Runsfeld put him in an unsupported position.

If General Batiste said, in front of reporters, "Sir, I'll tell you, now - we need more men," he could put his mission at risk.

If he said, "We've got all the men we need.", he would be untruthful. And would be responsible for the consequences.

Instead - he didn't answer, and Rumsfeld apparently chose not to give him a private moment to do so.

he actually had sufficient troops to win.

Um, he said he was winning and had turned a corner. I don't think he "won" and I don't think he said he won, although I'll admit what he did say sounds like self-promotion.

There are over 6,000 retired officers of flag ranks.

How many the 6,000 served in Iraq ? How many of the 6,000 served under Rumsfeld ?

Got any more meaningless statistics ?

The comments about the essential need to have a chain of command to maintain loyalty to the Corps are all correct, but they they come at a high cost.

Generals must know they won't be bucked - they have to have confidence that their orders will be followed. Soldiers need to depend on each other under fire. And the nation benefitted massively from this loyalty in WW II and Korea (the US attained it's objectives in Korea - we stopped the invasion, BTW).

But the cost is there plainly for everyone to see. When the chain of command is used to stifle reality from reaching the President and the Joint Chiefs. When men at the top order their underlinings to shut up - when generals are essentially told to lie to keep their jobs. Then you have Vietnam and now Iraq.

And that's when the high ranking officials have to make the tough call - the unbearably difficult choice to either resign or continue. Because like or not, all these generals who agreed to just obey and march into Iraq - have essentially aided and abetted the destruction of majority of the US army's fighting capability for years to come.

In fact it's difficult to see the US ever again attaining the relative military power and capability that it had in 2001.

It would be nice if there were easy answers to when to quit and when to stay - but I'd throw out this. When a general is convinced that following orders will lead to disaster, it's time to quit.

How many the 6,000 served in Iraq ? How many of the 6,000 served under Rumsfeld ?

They've all had to serve in hotspots and all have had to deal with a lack of resources. No one in battle has enough troops or enough assets or enough information. No one agrees with their boss all of the time either. It's only a tiny minitory who've come out and done so publically WELL AFTER IT COULD DO ANYONE BUT THEIR OWN MEDIA CAREERS ANY GOOD!!

Either you have a duty to tell the truth, or you do not. Which is it? Does it depend on having no one else there who is charged with communicating what our armed forced are doing to the citizens of this nation?

As many have pointed out, in miltary, once a decision has been made, you do not express any dissent. I would assume that the general did have his views known to Rumsfeld at some point in time prior to this meeting.

Have you trolls ever heard of Boot Camp? 6 weeks of ripping you down to nothing and then building the Soldier from the Mind down.Officers go through this in even more dramatic ways.Your lack of understanding in this and all manners is truly a laugh for me. Thanks!

rdw, I had no idea brown was your favorite color lipstick.

Or is that a dirty sanchez you are modeling?

Either way, probably not the best idea to be so far up Rummy's anus. Not much air and can lead to bad thinking.

And BTW - this whole question of whether you can always go with a perfect army - the answer is of course not.

But that ignores the other basic question: do you start a war, when you don't have enough soldiers to win it? Of course not.

And you definitely don't go to war if you don't have any reasonable thought-through plan to deal with the military and political aftermath.

My own guess is that the tipping point for any hope of winning in the long run in Iraq was the day Turkey refused to join the US. Maybe (although very unlikely) the US could have pulled off some great shell game with the Turks (e. g. giving them some sort of control of Kurdistan and it's oil). But once the Turks joined Iran in having every incentive to see the US fail, there was there was no way that the US would pull it off. It was just a matter of time and a question of how bad the debacle would be.

Wapiti, by not telling the truth about the men he needs, the good general put his mission at risk and failed to tell his superior the truth when asked to do so by the superior himself. The fact that the press happened to be there is no reason for the general to have been silent.

lib, why assume a decision was made when it was Rumsfeld himself who asked his general the question? Should we just assume that the military has reason to present a false front to us citizens about the war they are fighting? IMO, the military tail should not wag we the people's dog.

Partially true but he's also a political hack and a bureaucratic coward.

rdw demonstrates that the Bush Cultists' respect for the military extends only so far as they provide political ocver for Dear Leader. I don't know if it's more pathetic or disgusting.

No, wait -- it's disgusting, hands down.

David W.

I think you are being purposefully naive here.

In fact it's difficult to see the US ever again attaining the relative military power and capability that it had in 2001.

Something good can come from the illegal invasion and occupation, afterall.

In fact it's difficult to see the US ever again attaining the relative military power and capability that it had in 2001.

Sam,

The Afghans held the Soviet army in check for a decade, caused large numbers of casualties and eventually chased them out. The US, using a fraction of it's firepower, defeated Afghanistan in 3 weeks.

In Iraq they defeated what was supposed to be the wordls 5th largest army in three weeks again and with minimal casualties. They are currently fighting a terror war with an imbedded foe and winning decisively. By this time next year they will have built and trained the most powerful army in the Arab world in less than 4 years. Over 55M people are now living under democracies thanks to this awesome military which is demonstrably more powerful than in 2001.

Also note that during this period they carried several large huminitarian missions. Tsumami refies in indonesia was the lalrge single relief operation carried out in our history and a decisive political success. In the period before the operation public opinion in INdonesia for Osama was high and for Bush was low. 6 months after the operation their positions reversed. The US and Indonesia have since signed minor trade deals and an important military cooperation deal. They are currently negotiating a free trade agreement.

The US is more popular in Indonesia now than in France at anytime over the last 30 years. With 245M people that's not a bad market to open. For several weeks cable TV in Asia carried video ofthe relief operations 24/7. It's amazing what an effect watching the American military pull into port and immediately download water, electricity, food, blankets, medical supplies and then a small airforce of copters to run rescue and delivery operations.

The same is true in Pakistan where again, thanks to massive relief operations by the US military, they saw brave Americans working like demons to help them. As a result our polls are higher in Pakistan than in France.

So Sam, you have it perfectly backwards. The US military has never been more feared, nor respected, nor beloved as it is today.

Bush has done two war fronts now.Afgan started out ok, But then we did not secure the borders and Object escaped.Went into Iraq started ahh ok. But then we did not secure the bordes can't stop object from entering.What did we learn 1 Always secure the Borders 2 Don't do it on the cheap,Wars cost money spend what it takes to win.3 Most important.Overwhelming force,Aways use Overwhelming Force.4 Get out while the gettins good.

RDW Could you blow some more of that sweet smoke up my ass please.

rdw demonstrates that the Bush Cultists' respect for the military extends only so far as they provide political ocver for Dear Leader

The generals' whinning has little to do with Bush. It's directed directly at Rummy although even that's silly. He was a two star general not privy to the meetings of the joint chiefs when total troops counts were decided. Either the joint chiefs made a recommendation or they didn't. Batiste has no clue. He might have some gossip but that's it. Bush did not determine troops levels.

They've all had to serve in hotspots and all have had to deal with a lack of resources. No one in battle has enough troops or enough assets or enough information. No one agrees with their boss all of the time either.

The generals who are complaining have all served
in multiple hotspsots and have dealt with all the usual problems. These are career military people with impeccable records.

It's only a tiny minitory who've come out and done so publically WELL AFTER IT COULD DO ANYONE BUT THEIR OWN MEDIA CAREERS ANY GOOD!!

They are calling for Rumsfelds resignation. Something that would have been inappropriate to
do while they were serving. Batiste TURNED DOWN A PROMOTION.

rtw:

Thank you, sir, for your praise of Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld, as you point out, is leading the military through what is called a "transformation."

And, boy, is he transforming it! Look at what a fantastic job he's doing in Iraq, for all the world to see!

Why is it that only a few gifted people - men of vision, like you and me - are able to see a resounding success in what the rest of the planet regards as an abysmal failure.

Oh why indeed . . .

Not said often enough, well done rdw.

jazz, booo

Gotta do better than that.

I'm just an interested observer. Rummy is the perfect man of the job. He's not only in total control of the uniforms and the press but as an added bonus he drives liberals bonkers. The mere sound of his voice gives them shivers.

Let's face it, agree with transformation or not, agree with Bush or not, Rummy is doing the job assigned to him. You also have to admit you've gotten him wrong at every turn. You thought GWB would fire him and keep Powell. Yet at the same time, knowing GWB disagrees with you entirely and NEVER does what the press thinks he should do, you had to know Rummy was staying.

Sure enough GWB tightened his foreign policy team. He made the right choice. Rice is far superior at State and Rummy will be recognized as the most accomplised and consequential DefSec since Marshal.

Batiste is bitter. He didn't have the balls to take on Rummy and he saw his mentors get cut down. That's how it goes when you back the wrong horse.

rdw, you need to clap LOUDER!

If you clap real loud for the Dear and Glorious Decider, then Tinkerbell WON'T DIE!

But if you don't clap, she will perish!!! Heavens!

So, please, rdw, put on your silly little hat, sing loudly and clap VERY LOUDLY for our Dear Decider.

The Afghans held the Soviet army in check for a decade, caused large numbers of casualties and eventually chased them out. The US, using a fraction of it's firepower, defeated Afghanistan in 3 weeks.

Ah yes, those Afghans that we funded, armed, and trained and supported against the Soviets. Tell me, was Osama a terrorist or freedom fighter then - I forget? How thoroughly dishonest of you rdw - same old same I guess.

By this time next year...

It's always "next year" with trolls.

they will have built and trained the most powerful army in the Arab world in less than 4 years.

And that army will turn on us the following year. Is this a good thing or a bad thing - I forget?

I'm all in favor of the US military humanitarian missions. I wish we could have more of those and less Wars of choice against the wrong people. Less people die that way.

No jazz, you need to complain harder. Message. Not. Getting. Through.

Worked on you, didn't it Jay?

Doesn't take much to rile up bitter GOP virgins.

Not really ckelly, less people died when the US military took out Hitler and less people will die as a result of deposing Saddam.

"I forget" - ckelly

Now there's a democrat campaign slogan.

Why is it I'm the only one who can see the genius of Rumsfeld?

WHYYYYYYYY!!!

yup, I'm all riled up jazz. All riled....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

less people died when the US military took out Hitler

What part of "Wars of Choice" don't you understand?

less people will die as a result of deposing Saddam.

Prove it.

"I forget" is apparently the testimony of all Bush appointees.

Why is it that only a few gifted people - men of vision, like you and me - are able to see a resounding success in what the rest of the planet regards as an abysmal failure.

That's not at all true and it doesn't matter. As both GWB and Rummy have proven leadership is not a popularity contest. The so-called rest of the planet is mostly Europe and/or populations with little access to unbiased news. Europe simply doesn't matter. This is the society that backed Arafat and coddled other terrorists. The majority of 9/11 terrorists were radicalized in Europe. The result is a very wise move to withdrawl from Europe completely militarily and start the process politically.

We are of two different mindsets regarding islamic terrorism. They wish to try appeasment. We're not thinking about it. We'll see who Irans starts to push around and how other nations react. Terrorists attacked in NY and lost two governments and 100k men. Terrorists attacked in Madrid and then selected the new government. Spain is theirs. As far as the rest of Western Europe, with their surguing and most unhappy islamic minoritioes, sponsored by Iran and their nuclear umbrella, served by missles that can reach Paris, we'll just see.

It's clear Kadaffy understands what allowing attacks on America would mean for him. Just as clear on Europe.

BTW Chuck, do a little research on the Kurdish North. It's a boomtown. There were 3M kurds but now there are 4M and before we know it they're will be over 6M. They have Oil, Water and now peace and security for the Kurdish people. They like America better than you do!

Dumbsfeld and Shrub are liars.

What's new.

Jay: . . . less people died when the US military took out Hitler and less people will die as a result of deposing Saddam.

More people died when American conservatives supported and funded Saddam and his genocide.

(And Noriega.)

(And Pinochet.)

(And the Shah.)

(And the Taliban.)

(And Batista.)

(And Putin.)

(And Milosevic.)

(And the Saudi Monarchy.)

(And the German Nazis.)

Now, there's a GOP slogan for you!

One thing about Shinseki, he may have been pissed at Rumslfeld for killing the Crusader artillery program (which really shouldn't have seen the light of day), but he was also the one general who spoke up prior to the war about needing more troops. And he got frozen out by the administration. Let nothing interfer with administration's framing of the narrative.

And as far as Rumsfeld being the guy to reform the military, I think that ship has sailed. He has not been very effective at cutting out any of the Navy or Air Force's big ticket items. He did manage to reorganize the Army into smaller, more mobile units before 9/11, but that was at the cost of thining out much of the support units (including Military Police); then we sent the Army out to Iraq for a classic "big unit" campaign, which of course has gone swimmingly and hasn't had any logistical problems at all.

Rummy certianly makes me grind my teeth in frustration, but that's as a veteran of the First Gulf War who doesn't like seeing the Army hung out to dry for political gain.

They are calling for Rumsfelds resignation.

A low tier retired general calling for Rummy's resignation is purely a publicity move. There is absolutely no chance he's going to effect Rummys resignation. If his opinion was valued at all wouldn't there have been more troops for him? He did what he did for specific PR proposes. It had nothing to do with Rummy's future.

Terrorists attacked in NY and lost two governments and 100k men.

And gee, one government actually had something to do with it and only a tiny fraction of the 100k "men".

Bombing and blowing shit up doesn't mean winning rdw. Neither does invading countries and toppling govts that had nothing to do with 9/11. Neither does killing civilians or armed fighters opposing said invasion and occupation.

Meanwhile we chip away at our own civil liberties, personal freedoms and democracy. We overextend our military so we have less options and security. Osama must be proud.

rdw: They like America better than you do!

More rdw mendacity and defamation!

Why aren't we surprised?

It's routine.

We are of two different mindsets regarding islamic terrorism.

You don't have a mind, so your statement is clearly a lie.

As both GWB and Rummy have proven leadership is not a popularity contest.

The only thing they've proven is that they don't possess leadership skills.

Funny how you pointed to Carter's approval ratings as proof of his failed leadership, but discount Bush's.

Europe simply doesn't matter.

Still passing around the lie that Condi never goes to Europe any more?

The majority of 9/11 terrorists were radicalized in Europe.

A stupid lie is nevertheless still a lie.

Terrorists attacked in Madrid and then selected the new government. Spain is theirs.

Yet another stupid lie.

At least get some new ones that are harder to disprove.

David W.

I think you are being purposefully naive here.

Yup. The guy's got to be totally thick in the head. The expression, "impossible situation," is beyond him. Real sensitivity to public American military subordination to civilian control.

Love the lib attacks above. Sweet!

Bombing and blowing shit up doesn't mean winning rdw. Neither does invading countries and toppling govts that had nothing to do with 9/11. Neither does killing civilians or armed fighters opposing said invasion and occupation.

But it sure makes the average right wing talk radio listener feel tough. That's what I'll never understand about these knuckledraggers. They equate 'kicking someone's ass' to solving the problem 100%.

Neither does invading countries and toppling govts that had nothing to do with 9/11. Neither does killing civilians or armed fighters opposing said invasion and occupation.

Invading countries that had everything to do with terrorism means an awful lot. It's not the global war on 9/11. It's the global war on terror. Every other pissant dictator in the world started taking inventory to make sure they would not end up in America's crosshairs. It's also had a very strong effect on Palestinains terrorism. Sharon has defeated the terrorist and even Europe is trying to distance itself from Hamas.

The fact that over 100k insurgents have been killed puts to rest the assumption Osama and others made about Clinton and America., "they'll never fight back".

We have won in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We have devastated Al Qaeda and established the cost to terrorists of attacking the USA. In Spain they got to pick their government. In the USA we destroyed the Taliban and Hussein while hunting them down like the dogs they are.

They know liberals will feel their pain and negotiate with them. They know conservatives will kill them.

Don't try and tell me you care about life advocate. I thought you were pro-choice.

We did not have to enter WWII, remember ckelly. Hitler never attacked us and his threat was not imminent. Isn't that your barometer for a war of choice?

But it sure makes the average right wing talk radio listener feel tough. That's what I'll never understand about these knuckledraggers. They equate 'kicking someone's ass' to solving the problem 100%.

I don't thnk so. Killing the terrorist means they'll never kill again. Removing the govt who supported them means other govts will be extremely careful in support them again.

It's really quite simple. Terrorists are bullies. Bullies are cowards. They'll push around those willing to allow it. They don't go near those who bite. We bite.

Osama has been marginalized and is now regularly ridiculed. His miscalculation was spectatular. He's achieved none of his goals and must live in caves. He's been wrong about everything. The only remaining interest is in the cat and mouse game. How long before the CIA kills him?

Calling it a lie is advocates way of disagreeing with an argument. How mendacious.

I am currently watching a documentary on the extraordinary tsunami relief efforts coordinated by the US military as led by GW. Funny how all of that is overlooked by the wingnuts here.

rdw and Jay, give it a rest. You guys were slaughtered today.

We have devastated Al Qaeda.

By invading Iraq? Really, that's a cute trick. Did we neuter N Korea and Iran at the same time?

We have won in Afghanistan.

I was very glad we went into Afghanistan. And just as angry when we didn't finish the job. Check your scorecard Mr. Cheerleader, the Taliban is making a comeback, opium is the product and Osama and Al Qaeda left.

Calling it a lie is advocates way of disagreeing with an argument. How mendacious

Jay, really hung up on the word "mendacity" today eh? Just because you had to run look it up doesn't make it a "new" word Jay. Except to you.

Here's some more..."kleptocracy" and "kakistocracy"

I am still waiting for you to re-define war of choice.

"......you were slaughtered today" Bob M

This really isn't a legitimate forum of debate Bob, this is drama queen central. I am just here for the laughs.

I am just here for the laughs.

and we thank you for providing them.

Why is it I'm the only one who can see the genius of Rumsfeldsz?

Q: Why did the short hair cross the road?

A: Someone told him to.

I am just here for the laughs.

Jay laughs when he hears an Iraqi family was blown up, accidentally.

Jay guffaws when he sees bodies lying in the streets of Fallujah eaten by dogs.

Jay blows milk through his nose when he finds out almost 500,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the invasion.

Jay snickers when he thinks of US soldiers made victims by their commander in chief.

Keep in mind, Generals in a war always want more troops, supplies, everything... But usually, when they can't get them its because the troops are being used somewhere else. But in Iraq, it was all about Rummy testing his more-with-less theories and giving the Generals what they wanted would ruin his test.

Check your scorecard Mr. Cheerleader, the Taliban is making a comeback, opium is the product and Osama and Al Qaeda left.

Afghanistan is doing great. This is the most prosperous time in their entire history. They've already returned over 3M refugees who fled the Taliban.

Al Qaeda is strong in the places they've always been strong which is the fringe of southern Afghanistan and in Eastern Pakistan. But even there they're getting killed. The best they can do is minor insurgent activty which has no influence on important events. Even in Eastern Pakistan the govt is making inroads along with periodic flyovers by CIA drones taking out the occasional cell.

One of the most interesting 'benefits' of this exercise is to rewrite the book on conducting and arming counter-insurgencies. How cool was it a few years back when CIA experts sitting in Langley were able to control a drone carrying 2 missles to track an Al Qaeda leader and his 'posse' and Yemen take all 6 out as if they were playing a video game. You know this happens a lot more than we find out about.

Osama knows all about it. He know's if he comes out of his cave there's a missle with his name on it. Because America is so strong they are better able to develop technology these terrorist can't defeat. This will of course also play out in Palestine. Israel wisely moved up the end date for construction of the security fence to coincide with the end of GWBs term. In other words the Palestinians will not be delaying negotiations hoping another sap like Clinton gets elected.

The fence works because of joint US/Israeli security advances. Electronic survalience is far superior and armed drones make attempts to defeat these measures extremely costly.

It has to be a miserable experience being a liberal. GWB put the girls back in school in Afghanistan. All you can do is tear the efrot down and be miserable. What a pity.

Yeah, but WW2 was different... (A) we didn't start it, (B) we had a liberal Democrat in charge who said there'd be sacrifices made by all and carried through on that by raising taxes, rationing, etc... and (C) we won hands down, no ifs and or buts, no insurgency.... unless you call a couple of guys in Guam or wherever it was who hid in the jungle for 15 years an insurgency.

And comparing casualty rates is ridiculous.... When you've got huge industrialized nations in a no quarter given war for world domination, you're gonna see millions of casualties. It's apples and oranges.

Custer only lost a hundred or so men, does that mean he's a genius compared to Eisenhower?

The US is pulling out, the poppy crop is booming, and the Taliban is controlling larger and larger swaths of territory because the warlords see the US abandoning Afghanistan.

The US is not pulling out and the poppy crop has been booming for 50 years. The taliban is not controlling larger swaths of land. We still have special forces operating behind the lines taking out more segments of Al Qaeda. The Taliban will never again be in control of any govt.

The UN program to return and resettle Afghanistan refugees continues apace. Kabul is still growing as every single measure of progress regardng infrastructure is well ahead of Taliban levels. There are more roads in afghanistan, more cars, more satellite dishes, radios, cell phones, schools, hospitals, etc.

WAIT, NOW THE REGRESSIVE-DEMOCRATS HAVE A NEW COMPLAINT:

THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ENOUGH CASUALTIES.

HA-HA.

TOH

I understand that this is the culture thing, but would it be really bad if he just answered "no" to "all you need" question in public and then left it at that? I don't see how that would be a violation of the military code or lead to discipline. Say what you need to say, but that doesn't mean you don't have to or won't follow orders.

"The US military has never been more feared, nor respected, nor beloved as it is today."

Something tells me that this is the kind of love we can (literally) live without.

David W.

I think you are being purposefully naive here.

lib, I think a good general takes his duty to his country more seriously than he does his loyalty to the organizataion. I am not naive about the fact that the current military mindset is to never, ever talk about differences openly in public. I am also not naive about how that sort of attitude kept us stuck in Vietnam for more years than we needed to be. I think we should talk more in public about the military situation in Iraq now, and I want to hear the truth from our generals if they are asked to give it, rather than have them be yes men.

I am currently watching a documentary on the extraordinary tsunami relief efforts coordinated by the US military as led by GW. Funny how all of that is overlooked by the wingnuts here.

Amazing how they can manage to deliver relief halfway around the world but can't get their act together for a Hurricane in New Orleans. They won't even have the levees fixed for the start of hurricane season.

"They" are the people on the ground. The US military in the tsunami area, excellent. Nagin in NO, not so good.

Bush and Rumsfeld are two peas in a pod. One wants to be liked by the American public, the other has been eating lemons. Ok, that has nothing to do with being peas in the same pod, but these two buys must go way back for the President not to boot him out as a flake. It's understandable for Bush not to "get it" as he has consultants that are supposed to "get it" for him. Rumsfeld seems more enamoured with his carefully articulated statements to the press, than actually reading the reports out of Iraq and admitting that something, somewhere along the line, went wrong.
I simply don't trust someone that can't admit they're wrong.
I trus them less when they do it with other people's lives.

So you are accusing General Metz, his superior of supporting a cover-up of his requests for more troops?

I have a question for all of you.

Do you think we would have won in Iraq with 500,000 troops? I mean in the long run. In the short run we probably could have set up some sort of puppet government and "pacified" the people. But in the long run?

No matter how you try to dress up our invasion of Iraq in high-flying motives, the fact is that we were and are the aggressors. People being invaded don't like the people who invade them. History is rife with examples of people conducting guerilla warfare against invaders, and in the long run, succeeding.

If, say, China had come in and invaded us, how would we have reacted? Don't you think that we would have undermined them in any way that we could? And that's what the "insurgents" in Iraq are doing now. Not to say that atrocities haven't been committed by them (and some by our troops). Again, put yourself in their position. Can we honestly say that our people would never commit atrocities against the Chinese or whoever invaded us? Also, don't you think we would be training our sons and daughters, and grandsons and granddaughters, to fight in whatever way they could, looking for whatever opportunities present themselves, to take down the invaders and their imposed government? Waiting for their own people to get tired of their sons and daughters dying to invade us?

I want the Iraqis and all peoples of the world to have democracy, as they identify it, choosing it for themselves, and evolving toward it. BUT...it is NOT our right to go in and invade a country which poses no threat to us, nor is it our right to impose "democracy" at the point of a gun.

I do not think that 500,000 troops would have won. Or a million. Not in the long run. In the long run, diplomacy and trying to find common goals to work towards are what succeed. Not perfectly, but also not at the cost of countless lives. Also any sorts of carrots that can be offered, in return for demostrable efforts by other governments to reign in their terrorists and wackos. We also need to be training vastly more numbers of our citizens to read Arabic, Farsi, Mandarin, Korean, etc., so that documents and communications in those other languages can be read in time to prevent future 9/11s.

BTW, I also am not opposed to using Special Forces, well-trained, and able to speak the local languages, to quietly take out known leaders of known terrorists.

Hitler never attacked us and his threat was not imminent.

Hitler did, however, issue a formal declaration of war against the US 3 days after Pearl Harbor, so the decision to go to war was a fait accompli.

You might try finding a better comparison, because this stupid war in Iraq certainly cannot be justified by this feeble-minded (and historically ignorant) attempt to link to WWII.

Overstretched American special forces hit the language barrier

Jason, no denying you are a liberal. Yes the special forces which have been operating in Afghanistan for 5 years just ran into the language barrier. Until now the Afghans spoke English.

Your use ofthe term overstretched started BEFORE the Afghan invasion even began and won't ever end.

Isn't it great to see NATO chip in? That your clips are limited to the Brits and Canadians isn't too shocking. What do you think the odds are of the French showing up?

RDW, the French are already there, you really need to start listening to other news sources than Limbaugh.

1,800 French troops make France the second largest partner of the United States in Afghanistan after Germany. French contributions include troops deployed through the International Security and Assistance Force (950, 10.5% of ISAF), training of the Afghan national army, Operation Enduring Freedom on the ground (special forces), at sea (2 frigates, 1 tanker, and 1 Maritime Patrol Aircraft), and in the air (2 transport aircraft, 3 reconnaissance jet fighters and 1 tanker);

Botecelli,

I am glad to stand corrected about French troops in Afghanistan however your information is not correct. France has about 900 troops in Afghanistan and is far behind the UK, Australia and Canada among others. The Brits are close to 6,000 and Canadians 2,200. Also as corrected by Canadian PM Harper, The canadians are there as crossing guards. He was correcting the NYT's.

Still, the French are there and deserve credit for it.

There may be a day when we can trust them again but we're not all that close. The fact is Western Europe has it's own economic and demographic problems to deal with. They are either going to submit to islamic terrorism as Spain did after Madrid or they're going to fight it as we're doing everywhere. GWB is taken two steps back from Europe while they decide how to proceed. They've shortchanged their defenses for two decades.

Fair enough, that data was from Nov 2004, but my point stands nonetheless.

But please,lay off this "submit to islamic terrorism as Spain did after Madrid" silly rhetoric. The Spanish kicked out the Anzar government because it lied to them after the attacks. In some countries, believe it or not, people actually hold their elected officials accountable.

If congress would not have approved of invasion if it involved 500k troops, then perhaps the argument for invasion wasn't convincing enough.

osama_been_forgotten

My point exactly. They had to lie about how many troops they needed because if they told the truth, they wouldn't have been allowed to invade Iraq.

correction:

harper said troops are NOT there as crossing guards. The NYTs tried to suggest the US was leaving Afghanistan defenseless by replacing US troops with NATO troops.

Obviously Harper was insulted.

The good news here is Canada is the worse of the liberal nations part of NATO. 20 years ago their troops were considered by many to be the best trained in NATO. That comes from US sources. Since then Canada has gutted military spending to 1% of GDP. Australia, 2/3s the size, spends $17B versus Canada's $10B. Quite obviously this kind of spending over time compounds and leads to a radical degradation. The Aussies are far more valuable in a tough spot.

The reasons we left NATO and now operate in coalitions is because nations like France, Germany and Canada insist on a voice well above their punching weight. Thus they are of extremely dubious value in a permanent alliance.

There's absolutely no question if the choice is to team with the UK and Australia versus France, Canada and Germany what the decision must be.

Perhaps now realizing they stand alone they'll start to invest more seriously in their defenses. Knowing what the NYTs thinks of them what must Al Qaeda and the Taliban think? They saw what a good sucker punch could do in Spain.

I wonder what the French must think of Reagans Star Wars program now? They have a large, pissed off islamic minority AND radical clerics in Iran just as pissed off building the bomb. A few weeks back they made the point of announcing they had missles that could reach Paris.

Bet a missle defense system is sounding interesting.

Rdw perfectly illustrates the fantasy land the right wing nuts have to construct for themselves in order to maintain their belief that things are going so swimmingly. rdw's assertions of "fact" are so wildly dis-connected to reality that they are almost pathological.

Please rdw read a bit of the foreign press and check your propaganda before you spout off.

This country's military is in an incredibly tough spot right now, and facing reality is the first step in dealing with the situation.

For people like Rdw, if Limbaugh says it's true, then it must be true

This country's military is in an incredibly tough spot right now, and facing reality is the first step in dealing with the situation.

Any military in a multi-front war is in a tough spot. This is especially true in an insurgency with men/boys willing to kill themselves.

No one said it wasn't incredibly hard work and our service people are heroes. That's not empty verbage.

However from a strategic perspective it's not hard to see we've won. We've won in Afghanistan and in Iraq and we're winning everywhere else. Iraq is a democracy. All attempts by Al Qaeda to stop it have failed. The Sunni are going to cut their best deal with the Shia (none of this is about the Kurds. They've won a historic victory for their people and are prospering beyond all expectations) and then get on with a unified and very prosperous Iraq. They sit atop an ocean of oil, have plenty of water and a long history of commerce. They will also have a western trained army that will be the most skilled in the Arab world. Iran and Syria are most distraught over this as they should be.

In a few years as Iraq fills out their Air Force and their military gains more experience as a modern army Iraq will be able to defeat both Syria AND Iran simultaneously.

There will be periodic steps backword but the course is set.

Afghanistan has far more difficult problems with a truly medievil culture and will require more support. But the end result is known there as well. Schools are finishing their 5th year without the Taliban and the culture is changing. Kabul is a bustling metropolis with myriad problems and explosive growth. Homes in the city and most villiages are lined with satelitte dishes, cell phones are common and traffic is 5x's previous levels.

Our military had trouble recruting for their military because the recruits we so under-nourished they could not pass our physicals. They are coming along more slowly but they are coming along. Kabul will rely on NATO for an extended period but they are starting to join the 21st century after 30 years of war.

This is something to celebrate. Soccer stadiums are again used for soccer and school attendance is more than double at any period since the 80's.

While it's rather a disgrace liberals cannot celebrate even small victories it's their loss. History will record what the USA and it's allies have done for the Afghan people. There are few examples of such selfless giving and amazing success in the entire history of civilization.

BTW: The success in Israel is also the product of GWBs GWOT. Isn't it rather amazing that the liberal press in Europe and the USA in 2000 considered Sharon a terrorist and Arafat a peacemaker well deserving of his Nobel Prize? Yet last year Sharon has a stroke and the liberal press gasps as this 'indespensible' man lies incapacitated?

The history of liberalism in the post-68 era is one of weakness and failure. From Jimmy Carter to Clinton to Chirac, Schroeder and Martin. The Taliban lives in caves because of GWB. They prospered with this crowd.

rdw, you have to be a parody or else you are the stupidest organism on the entire planet.

I'll make it simple -- we are averaging 2 soldiers killed per day and a $1,000,000,000 per week to bring an Iranian client state into being.

I guess for morons like you, wishing will make it all go away. Too bad for you and your fascistic Cult of Bush (GOP) that the American people have woken up.

Iraq is a democracy

Rdw - thank so much for making my point. Just asserting it, doesn't make it true.

Rdw - thank so much for making my point. Just asserting it, doesn't make it true.

Does having 3 elections make it true?

I'll make it simple -- we are averaging 2 soldiers killed per day and a $1,000,000,000 per week to bring an Iranian client state into being.

The cost is high but so is the risk of allowing Al Qaeda to prosper if we do nothing. Most people learned this on 9/11. Many already knew.

We've freed 55M people from the worst tyranny and completely changed the middle east. Even Europe has stopped supporting Arafats terrorists. Terror doesn't work against America and it's allies. Osama is now viewed as a moron. He lost everything. He told his fellow radicals we'd cut and run. 100,000 of them are now dead and the rest are living in caves. The governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Pakistan, etc now shoot 1st and ask questions later. Osama carried himself as the chosen one. Now he's just another coward hiding out in caves. When he spoke of dying for allah he didn't mean himself!

This time next year we are the reserve in Iraq supporting their now professional army. They will reach their desired size by year end and will need time to gain experience and expertise. The $3B they took in from increasing oil exports will do much for their armorment purchases.

复印机维修,复印机租赁,数码复印机,打印机,办公

computer hardware,办公设备,计算机硬件,打印机,复印机,投影机,传真机,一体机
办公设备,计算机硬件,打印机,复印机,投影机,传真机,一体机
复印机行业,复印机科学,复印机知识,复印机新闻,复印机测评
复印机
复印机资料
复印机相关资讯,fuyinji news
复印机,copier
复印机
复印机学习
复印机博客
复印机
复印机网站
复印机,电脑硬件外设
复印机,copier
复印机博客
copier,复印机
复印机教育
复印机,打印机,办公,一体机,传真机,考勤机,收款机
复印机大全
复印机列表
夏普
佳能
东芝
京瓷
理光
施乐
奥西
工程复印机

No rdw, not even close.

The cost is high but so is the risk of allowing Al Qaeda to prosper if we do nothing.

Completely false dilemma. The U.S. was not "doing nothing," and attacking Iraq has only caused al Qaeda to flourish in a country where it formerly had no presence.

Most people learned this on 9/11. Many already knew.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration only finally learned it on the day of 9/11 when in fact the Clinton administration, Richard Clarke, and others "already knew" and had been feverishly trying to persuade the incompetent morons in office that terrorism was a serious threat.

John Ashcroft was busy chasing hookers and pornographers while slashing money for anti-terror measures in the FBI budget, Dick Cheney essentially relieved Richard Clarke from duty and left our country undefended, and Bush ignored Presidential daily briefings saying that attacks were imminent and went on a month-long vacation instead.

We've freed 55M people from the worst tyranny and completely changed the middle east.

Yes, we have changed the Middle East. Iran went from a moderate to a hardline government that is now pursuing nukes and threatening its neighbors, the Palestinians elected Hamas to power, half of Iraqis polled to this day still believe attacks against Americans are justified (probably because every day is an unbearable horror show there courtesy the U.S.), Saudi Arabia is considering fencing off its border with Iraq to prevent a fundamentalist uprising in their country, Turkey has massed troops on the border of Kurdistan and Iran is allegedly lobbing mortars in from the other end.

If Bush wanted change in the Middle East, well -- mission accomplished.

Terror doesn't work against America and it's allies.

Terrorism has been fantastically effective against America. Americans are happily giving up civil liberties they've enjoyed for two hundred years out of fear of terror attacks, Bush knucked under and gave in to bin Laden's demands to remove troops from Saudi Arabia, and we are bleeding our blood and treasure in foreign entanglements that will only end in stalemates.

Osama is now viewed as a moron.

I recommend you google "bin Laden" and "hero" -- in fact, use Google News so the results will be recent. You will find story after story where Arabs and experts in Arab culture report that bin Laden is more popular than ever. He is "the most popular man in Saudi Arabia" and the hero of fundamentalist youth.

100,000 of them are now dead and the rest are living in caves.

This is the most egregious statement of all. There weren't one hundred thousand terrorists anywhere to begin with. Just who do you mean by this figure? The Iraqi citizens who've died since the invasion??? The ordinary people killed from car bombs and IED's and small weapons fire and mortar rounds and extreme heat and disease?

If you've reached the point in your revisionist narrative where every innocent casualty of war has to be rebranded a terrorist in order to defend a disastrous military action and shore up your failing political party, then you've strayed far from your humanity into territories obscene.

windhorse,

You are going to be devastated by history. May you live long enough to see it. Don't believe for a minute the newspapers 'write the 1st draft of history'. They don't have any effect. The most glaring examples are Truman and JFK but it's true in every case.

GWB has had an incredibly effective Presidency and he's done it by ignoring the press. In fact doing the opposite of their wishes.

Kyoto is dead and disgraced. It will not be replaced. The AMB treaty is done and forgotten. All combat troops have been removed from Germany and all associated bases returned. Rumsfeld has articulated coalitions of the willing as US policy thus effectively ending NATO unless the US decides to use it in a US led and designed coalition. Rummy has transformed the services after cleaning out Clinton appointees and established pre-emption as US policy. GWB backed Sharon 110% and ended the illusion of Arafat the nobel prize winner and Oslo as a success.

GWB has exposed the UN as massively corrupt. We've learned liberal Europe cannot be trusted. Forget the world court. Embrace globalism. GWB has signed 7 free trade agreements and has 17 ondeck. Besides moving our military out of NATO GWB has moved dramatically closer to Asia in India, Indonesia, Australia, Japan, Pakistan, etc. Unit exports increased by 12% in the 1st Qtr driven by Asia. The good news will continue as Asia is just getting started.

GWB added Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court and his justice department repeatedly out-lawyered the NYT's while eliminating perceived press priveledges. Union membership has collapsed along with newspaper subcriptions and network viewership.

In short GWB has been the MSM's worst nightmare. Ask Dan Rather. He's also been a severe setback for liberalism here and abroad. Ask Martin, Schroeder and Chirac. Arafat was Clintons most frequent guest. Arafat never met GWB. Clinton was sucking up to a terrorist.

Slick Willy simply doesn't have a legacy. GWB will have a tremendous legacy.

Bush knucked under and gave in to bin Laden's demands to remove troops from Saudi Arabia

Except he didn't and no one thinks he did. We're out of Saudi Araba because we built huge bases in Qatar and Kuwait where the climate is far more hospitable than Islamic Saudi Arabia. Dubai is a tourist destination far better for R&R and basing as well as a significantly better port.

One interesting bit of recent news is that both Qatar and Kuwait have discovered massive new gas fields and for Kuwait a 13B barrel oil field. They are good friends to have. We are good friends to have. One of the more interesting things about the Saudi's is their recognition that Osama is far more dangerous to them than to GWB. They have the most feared security services in the middle east. Al Qaeda members in Saudi Arabia will commit suicide before allowing themselves to get captured. They won't survive long anyway.

You are going to be devastated by history.

So having no substantive rejoinder after I debunked your wildly false assertions point by point, your only recourse was to ramble on ad nauseam again about Kyoto, Europe, and Clinton, basically telling me in so many words that "I lose" and "nana na na naaaa naaaa."

Well, if that's all you got then you forgot to mention the French and tar sands. Tsk tsk.

I know you're scared. If I were you I would be too. Your memes have lost their power. They're lifeless now, and they're not going to fool voters anymore. Even Rasmussen thinks so.

I have some bad news for you: it's only going to get worse before it gets better.

I didn't argue every point due to time. Maybe later. I don't need to google Osama and find out how many Saudi's have named their kids Osama. But I have seen the recent polls in places like Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan and Iraq where the muslims have been victims of Osama and they've seen american largess. Al Qaeda is not popular.

As far as the Tar Sands all is well. Check out energy news and you'll see the bids on permits and shares of acerage is very active. Everyone wants a piece of Alberta. More interesring is ethanol. Pataki announced last week approved funding on two plants in NY to produce 150M Gal a year and proposed funding for a 3rd.

So I did more research and am quite impressed. In December ethanol production represented 3% of total imports. Plants under construction will increase that by 42% and forecasters expect this rate will continue. The two NY plants would increase that 42% to 45%. Ethanol has characteristic that make it extremely popular for Governors to push. Plants provide good jobs and are great for farmers while helping motorists and the environment. There's no rocket science either. They're essentially alcohol stills. A plant in NY will use NY corn, NY labor, serve NY drivers and clean NY air.

It's not hard to forecast continued growth in ethanol production to replace 1% - 1.5% of gasoline imports per year for the next 5 years. With Tar Sands oil replacing another 3.5% - 4% per year of total imports we can eliminate imports from OPEC by 2010.

GWB is solving the problem.

I'm not at all scared. Polls aren't power. Positions are power. The Pres, VP, Senate majority leader, Speaker of the house and chief justice are all conservatives. Zogby can't VETO a bill. Only GWB can do that.

BTW: look at the senate races and notice the GOP is doing OK. Santorum is in trouble as it Burns but NY and MN are ripe for pickup. Dewine and Talent have pulled ahead while Cantwell is losing her lead. Don't be shcoked if the GOP gains a seat.

I wonder how the Army Times and other civilain military magazines are reporting on the revolt of the retired generals against Rumsfeld.

me: he actually had sufficient troops to win.

wapiti: Um, he said he was winning and had turned a corner. I don't think he "won" and I don't think he said he won, although I'll admit what he did say sounds like self-promotion.

Since he said he was winning, and since he said that they turned a corner, then it is my inference, not his claim, that he had sufficient troops "to win".

This kind of debate puts us armchair generals in a bind. McClellan always asked for more troops no matter how superior his forces were to the Confederates in front of him; Grant never requested more troops, and won with the army that he had (in each theater.) McArthur demanded more firepower, but Ridgeway recovered lost territory with the army that he had. Reading the article on Batiste, it sounded as though he could win with the troops he had, based on what he said. He turned down a promotion and a command when he had the chance to go back, which is either brave or cowardly.

On the whole, I dodn't think Batiste made the case for Rumsfeld's resignation. If Rumsfeld has to resign, it will be when Congress decides that the "light army" is a bad idea, and increases funding for the "heavy army" (which indeed was responsible for success in Iraq.) However, if the military is primarily for the defense of the US, instead of the conquest of foreign territory, then emphasis on the navy and air force is reasonable. The discussion is more complicated than simple either/or. I don't think that proponents of a strong military in Congress are pushing hard to enlarge the army. Most criticisms of Rumsfeld are from people who want reduced military all around.

If Rumsfeld has to resign, it will be when Congress decides that the "light army" is a bad idea, and increases funding for the "heavy army" (which indeed was responsible for success in Iraq.)

Congress cannot force Rummy to resign nor can they put substantial pressure on GWB to do so. People seem to forget he is doing exactly the job GWB appointed him to do. The fact he is a lightening rod for criticism is an advantage for Bush. Many people seem to think press criticism and low polling has slowed the transformation. If anything the opposite is true. Rummy is an extremely skilled inside operator. Generals hate civilian control. Rummy has total control.

The heavy army had zero to do with the victories in Iraq and Afghanistan. Special forces directing smart fire were clearly the most important factors. There wasn't a single tank battle nor did artillary play a significant role. My nephew was in a Marine artillary unit before the war started. They has no use for him and he was transferred into infantry.

At this point it would be very hard for the Congress to change the direction set by Rumsfeld largely because of this success and the fact Rummy has conservative support. Liberals are hardly going to run on increasing spending for big weapons and taking money away from special forces and other priorities would be political suicide. Since liberals will be running on deficit reduction the lalst place they'll increase spending is defense.

rdw: I am glad to stand corrected about French troops in Afghanistan . . .

rdw gets caught in yet another lie (now in the hundreds no doubt) and pretends it doesn't matter, despite the fact that every conclusion he's reaching is based on similar falsehoods and/or ignorance.

Proving once again, he's either pathetically stupid and uninformed or a serial liar or both.

rdw: Rummy has total control.

Of everything but the things America needs him to be in control of: Iraq, Afghanistan, the Global Whine on Terror, OBL, Al Queda, etc, etc, etc.

Dumbsfeld: Worst SecDef ever.

rdw: Worst liar ever.

My nephew was in a Marine artillary unit before the war started. They has no use for him and he was transferred into infantry.

Doubtful.

rdw: They won't survive long anyway.

Exactly what you said about the insurgency more than a year ago.

Credibility rating for rdw predictions and conclusions: zero

BTW, are you still promoting the lie that Strickland in Ohio is trailing all of his potential GOP opponents in the polls despite the reality that he leads all those potential opponents?

Or is that just another fact you're happy to be corrected on?

Dewine and Talent have pulled ahead . . .

Rasmussen (05/15/2006): Ohio Congressman Sherrod Brown (D) holds a three-point lead over incumbent Senator Mike DeWine (R).

You apparently just can't avoid lying through your teeth when it comes to Ohio polling number, eh, rdw?

You lied about Strickland's polling against several GOP possibles there and now about Brown's polling against DeWine.

Just curious, rdw, is there anything you aren't delusional about or anything you won't lie about?

rdw: Liberals are hardly going to run on increasing spending for big weapons and taking money away from special forces and other priorities would be political suicide.

George Bush didn't run on cutting troop pay, sending bill collectors after troops whose duty was cut short due to wounds, eviscerating medical benefits for veterans, or sending our troops into battle without sufficient training or armor and yet he did all these things anyway.

Just call him George "Jimmy Carter (without the morals)" Bush.

Here's some good news for you, rdw (although it appears you have run away after being caught in numerous lies and logical inconsistencies):

President Bush's numbers in the state are atrocious. Just 25% give him good or excellent marks for handling both the immigration issue and energy policy.

However, the President's numbers are stronger than Ohio Governor Robert Taft (R). Just 2% of the state's voters "Strongly Approve" of Taft's job performance while 55% "Strongly Disapprove."

25%.

In Ohio.

A model state for those things you say work in Bush's and the GOP's favor.

They had a word for people like you in Nazi Germany that were blindly loyal to and carried the water for incompetent, irrational, and morally reprehensible leaders: brownshirt.

You wear the color well.

There wasn't a single tank battle nor did artillary play a significant role.

Yeah, except that's not true at all:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/05/sprj.irq.lyle/index.html

Advocate (as usual) is right: your stuff is so pernicious and transparently false it's hardly worth the time spent correcting such a huge load of BS.

rdw: This kind of debate puts us armchair generals in a bind.

You are more of an "armchair private no-class".

For someone who claims to be former military and related to serving individuals, your hatred for our armed forces is inexplicable.

We've had enemies who've treated our soldiers better than you, Bush, and Dumbsfeld.

Here's some more good news for you, rdw:

DeWine has lost ground in four straight polls since peaking at 46% in mid-February.

And it pretty much shows that your claim about DeWine was not merely a mistake, but a bald-faced lie, just like so much of the other crap you spew forth after being spoon-fed by your GOP masters.

Even better, check out the Wikipedia synopsis. Tank battle after tank battle, including the largest British tank engagement since WWII. We actually did so well militarily because of our tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Just curious, rdw, is there anything you aren't delusional about or anything you won't lie about?

Try this:

President = Conservative
VP = Consevative
Senate = Consevative
House = Conservative
state dept = Conservative
Def Dept = Conservative
John Roberts = Conservative
Sam Alito = Conservative
Bret Kavanaugh = Conservative
John Bolton = Conservative

Is that delusional?

How about this?

Kyoto is defunct.
The ABM treaty is defunct.
NATO is a shell.
Globalization is advancing. GWB has signed and congress has appoved 7 Free trade deals and 17 more are on deck.
Trade is exploding.
The state dept is reducing in Europe and increasing in India.
Military transformation is
avancing rapidly
GWB is calling all of the shots in Iraq and the pentagon via Rumsfeld.

The Saddam-built army, armed mainly with Soviet-built equipment, was overall ill-equipped in the face of Coalition forces. Missiles launched from Iraq were either interdicted by U.S. anti-air batteries, or made little to no strategic impact on their targets. Attacks on Coalition supply routes by Fedayeen militiamen were repulsed. The Iraqi's artillery proved completely ineffective, and they did not even mobilize their air force to attempt a defense. The Iraqi T-72 tanks, the heaviest armored vehicles in the Iraqi Army, were both outdated and ill-maintained, and when they did stand up to Coalition forces were rapidly destroyed, thanks in part due to the Coalition's air superiority. The U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Naval Aviation, and British Royal Air Force operated with impunity throughout the country, pinpointing heavily defended enemy targets and destroying them before ground troops arrived.

The main battle tanks (MBT) of the Coalition forces, the U.S. M1 Abrams and British Challenger 2, proved their worth in the rapid advance across the country. Even with the large number of RPG attacks by irregular Iraqi forces, few Coalition tanks were lost and no tank crewmen were killed by hostile fire. The only tank loss sustained by the British Army was a Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers that was hit by another Challenger 2, killing two crewmen. All three British tank crew fatalities were a result of friendly fire.

What this is saying is tanks were used only as transportation. The air forces had already eliminated Iraqi tanks such as they were. The coalition lost one tank and that was due to friendly fire.

There were NO tank battles.

AFG:

You really need treatment. I can't imagine what it is like to get up in the morning knowing GWB is your President and he relies on giants like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, etc. And you'll be getting up almost 1,000 more mornings to face the same reality.

Kyoto is DEAD. There's nothing that can be done to save it. The ABM treaty is a bad memory. We have all but completely separated from Europe. GWB has had more conversations and meetings with the goverment of India in the last 6 months than with France the last 6 years. A few months back the WH immediately issued a press release after Chirac called GWB stating GWB had nothing to do with the call, did not request a conversation and nothing serious was accomplished.

This has to be devastating for serious liberals but you are just going to have to deal with it in your reality based community. GWB has 3 more years to increase and consolidate his gains. The world you wake up in 2009 will be dramatically different than in 2001. Deal with it!

Here you go AFG. Here's why liberalism and France are so dead.

A Paris street has been named after cop-killing death row inhabitant Mumia Abu-Jamal:

The street is in the town’s Human Rights district, which includes Nelson Mandela Stadium.

Does Potassium Chloride Injection Street have parking meters? Probably not, but if it did, perhaps the revenue could be donated to poor Fidel Castro:

Castro, in power since a leftist revolution in 1959, says his net worth is nil and that he earns only 900 Cuban pesos ($53) a month.

And the idiot still believes in communism.

Courtesy of timblair.com. Mumia is a cop killer. I can tell you this is big news in the Philly region. All of the local newscasts covered it. Officer Daniel Faulkner was assassinated in cold blood by that assh*le leaving a wife and two young kids. Fortunately Ms. Faulkner was no shinking violet and no liberal. She fought and won the PR war. Mumia is still a minor cause celeb among liberal elites and the fools in France but he's a piece of garbage to 95% of those familiar with the case. Which is the entire Phila region.

This is the kind of news which is just a PR disaster for the French and such great ammunition for conservatives.

Much like Castro!

You are insane, and terribly insulting to the tank corps who put their lives on the line in direct combat. Here is an eyewitness account of just one engagement from the link I already provided:

Capt. Clay Lyle, commander of the Apache Troop, spoke with CNN late Friday about a major tank engagement as his crew rumbled along a highway west of Baghdad.

Despite being outnumbered, the U.S. group vanquished the Iraqi Republican Guard force within minutes, thanks to superior armed vehicles and devastatingly powerful ammunition.

"My commander called me, gave me the warning order to be prepared to conduct an attack on 22 stationary T-72s [Soviet-built tanks used by the Iraqis] that the [U.S.] Air Force had identified," Lyle said.

"I selected a force, tank heavy, almost all the tanks in my troop, with some Bradleys [armored fighting vehicles] to go with it."

After U.S. aircraft assailed some Iraqi tanks, Lyle's squad, despite encountering an additional battalion of hidden Iraqi tanks and being outnumbered two to one, lumbered up the six-lane highway with guns blazing, turrets swinging from side to side.

The T-72s were a formidable presence, dug in and well protected behind barriers, anywhere from a range of half-mile to a mile away.

"It's different from small-arms and RPGs [rocket-propelled-grenades.] That can be intense, but there is the relative safety of being in a tank," Lyle said. It is quite a different feeling when you are "staring down T-72s dug in, in fighting positions."

The fire fight was forceful but brief. It was "10 minutes of probably the most intense fighting," Lyle told Rodgers and CNN anchor Aaron Brown.

The main gun rounds from the Iraqi tanks, for the most part, fell short or flew too high, Lyle said.

But the U.S. cavalry squadron hit its marks, destroying an estimated 20 or more armored Iraqi adversaries, without the loss of a single U.S. vehicle.

I know it's tough to be caught in so huge an error/lie. But be a man and own up.

rdw: Try this: . . . Is that delusional?

According to your own fellow conservatives, yes.

They reject the idea that Bush is a conservative.

So, again, you lie.

Kyoto is defunct.

Another lie or delusion.

The Kyoto Protocol is in full effect. The fact that the US isn't participating doesn't render it non-existent or no longer in effect.

Thus, you lie.

NATO is a shell.

An opinion, from a known liar (see notes on DeWine and Strickland above), unsupported by any objective fact.

Trade is exploding.

In Bush's face. It's called a trade deficit.

Military transformation is [advancing] rapidly

If by "advancing" you mean Dumbsfeld and Bush are getting a lot of American soldiers killed for nothing and turning the US armed forces into a shell of their former self, then you are correct, but we know that's not what you mean, so you are a liar.

GWB is calling all of the shots in Iraq and the pentagon via Rumsfeld.

More the pity and why Iraq is such an abject failure.

Now, how's that "Iraqi oil will pay for the war" coming along?

Or, "we'll eventually find WMDs in Iraq"?

Or, "democracy will spread throughout the Middle East as soon as Saddam is deposed"?

Roadmap to Nowhere.

There were NO tank battles.

Your delusions are complete, as is your dishonesty.

I can't imagine what it is like to get up in the morning knowing GWB is your President and he relies on giants like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, etc.

Couldn't be any worse than for you when Clinton was president for 8 years with approval ratings nearly twice as high as Bush 43's and knowing he was relying on Giants like Albright.

Kyoto is DEAD. There's nothing that can be done to save it.

Again, you lie. The Kyoto Protocol is going strong, with over a hundred participating nations. Your arrogant, self-centered focus on the US notwithstanding.

GWB has 3 more years to increase and consolidate his gains.

You have to have gains before you can increase or consolidate them and Bush has none.

GWB has had more conversations and meetings with the goverment of India in the last 6 months than with France the last 6 years.

Is this like your false claim from a few months ago that Condi hadn't made any recent trips to Europe, a claim that was debunked in less than 30 seconds with a Google search?

Or is it like your lies about Strickland and DeWine training in the polls in Ohio?

The world you wake up in 2009 will be dramatically different than in 2001.

You are right. A Democrat will be president and the Democrats will control Congress and I'll be glad to deal with it!

:-)

rdw: Here's why liberalism and France are so dead.

Conservatives like you defamed MLK in the same way (and continue to do so - I got an e-mail right around last MLK Day containing gross distortions and falsehoods about Dr. King's record passed along by conservatives) and yet hundreds of American streets are named after him.

Again, since you clearly lied about DeWine and Strickland, among many other things such as the tanks above, your claims have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

Much like Castro!

And yet Castro remains in power (despite your claim that there are no more communist nations in the world - yet another rdw lie) and has done so for far longer than Bush.

In fact, odds remain pretty good that Castro will outlast Bush (too bad, they both should be gone tomorrow).

So, based on your own sole criteria for defining success and righteousness (getting and maintaining political power), you must agree that Castro is more successful and righteous than Bush 43 and therefore you must believe that Castro is to be honored, respected, and celebrated just like Bush.

Why do you love Castro, a vicious dictator, so much?

For the same reasons you loved Saddam before you hated him, loved the Shah, love the repressive Saudi Monarchy, loved Noriega before you hated him, loved the Taliban before you hated them, love Musharraf, loved Pinochet, etc, etc, etc.

And for the same reasons you hate our own fighting men and women.

Because the partisan political success of Bush 43 trumps everything, including our national security, our honor, our integrity as a nation, our Constitution, and our soldiers.

You are a disgrace as an American and not just for your willingness to engage in serial lying in support of an incompetent and immoral president.

rdw: Castro, in power since a leftist revolution in 1959, says his net worth is nil and that he earns only 900 Cuban pesos ($53) a month.

So, you acknowledge that Castro practices what he preaches and puts his people above himself, even if he's wrong about what is best for them, while Bush 43 puts himself before all other Americans, including our soldiers, and that Bush's conservative supporters put their own economic success above all other principles and are unwilling to sacrifice anything or live simply (like Christ btw - funny how the allegedly godless Castro apparently lives like Christ taught, while the allegedly Christian Bush and you live just the opposite!).

So, let's get this straight:

Castro, unlike most of the dictators Bush and you have supported (the Shah, the Saudi Monarchy, Saddam, Musharraf, the Dubai Monarchy, etc.), doesn't keep all his country's money for himself, but lives as simply as his own people, lives as Christ directs in the Bible, and he's an evil, evil person, but Bush, who uses his power to collect more power and more wealth for himself and his supporters is a good guy?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

You're a hoot, rdw, a real hoot.

Castro may be an evil bastard, but certainly not because he refuses to enrich himself with the spoils of his dictatorial power, unlike Bush 43 and his supporters.

It is fascinating that you defend the Saudi Monarchy which leaves most of its people in abject poverty while leading lifestyles that would put Bill Gates' to shame, but you castigate Castro for not earning a lot of money, for practicing what he preaches, while Bush (and Cheney) and his allies practice nothing that they preach, including serving their country.

Too, too funny!

Thanks for the laugh!

The White House, in an abrupt reversal, has agreed to let the full Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees review President George W. Bush's domestic spying program, lawmakers said on Tuesday.

Bush flip-flops again, just like he did with the HSA, Condi testifying, the 9/11 Commission, etc, etc, etc.

Yep, he's a man of principle.

Not.

rdw lies in this thread alone:

1) Kyoto is defunct (dead/disgraced/etc)

2) DeWine has pulled ahead in the polls in Ohio

3) President Bush is a conservative (well, at least rdw's fellow conservatives are calling this a lie and they wouldn't lie, would they?)

4) There wasn't a single tank battle in Afghanistan or Iraq (of course, rdw ridiculously defines "tank battle" so narrowly and in such a tortured way that in his delusional mind this might be true, but we don't accept self-serving conservative definitions created solely to ensure self-fulfilling conclusions)

rdw: Officer Daniel Faulkner was assassinated in cold blood by that assh*le leaving a wife and two young kids.

And how many widows and orphans have the assh*les Bush 43, Cheney, and Dumbsfeld created in Iraq, rdw?

How many widows and orphans did Reagan and Bush 41 create through their support for Saddam during the gassing of the Kurds?

How many widows and orphans did Nixon create through his support for a murderous Shah?

How many widows and orphans did Reagan create through his support for the Contras and Guatemalan military leaders?

How many widows and orphans did Bush 43 create through his programs of torture resulting in the deaths of persons being interrogated?

How many widows and orphans did Bush 43 create through his support for the death penalty and the execution of innocents?

How many widows and orphans did Bush 43 create with his refusal to have FEMA do its job?

Yet you will surely agree that you will want to name streets after these accessories to murder.

Kyoto is DEAD. There's nothing that can be done to save it.

Again, you lie. The Kyoto Protocol is going strong, with over a hundred participating nations. Your arrogant, self-centered focus on the US notwithstanding.

Wrong, Kyoto is DEAD! GWb has already created the Asian Pacific Partnership to replace it. This is one of the coolest examples of liberal stupidity of the last decade. it's a piece of garbage and everyone knows its a piece of garbage.

It's hard to list my favorite aspect. I do like the fact our snotty liberal neighbors in Canada are going to get it shoved up their tush. Canada was the worst abuser BEFORE the surge of investment in Alberta. The upside of not drilling in ANWR is we get to dig in the Tar Sands. We were only going to get 1M barrels a day in ANWR anyway. Not only is Tar Sands production the worst polluting extraction method, far worst than oil drilling, but we're going to get 2x's as much from the Tar Sands.

Tell me that's not perfect. We produce less, pollute less and do a much better job meeting Kyoto guidelines. Canada produces a lot more, pollutes a great deal more and becomes the WORST polluter under Kyoto. There is a God and he's conservative!

Even better is the fact the record so far of the US is quite good. We are better than a majority of the EU signees and are likely to improve even more relative to the EU in the next 6 years. We may burn as much as 10% ethanol by 2009.

I am going to enjoy watching those simple bast*rds even try to lecture the US on pollution. Since the liberal party in Canada is in free fall it's unlikely we'll even hear them but there's no lack of fools in Europe.

Another aspect of this nonsense is Canada gets to chose to pay a huge fine becasue they are so far over their limits OR drop out of Kyoto. Quite Obviously Harper won't make this decisions. They'll have a referendum for the voters so they can rebuke the twits who agreed to this nonsense.

Or, they can pay the fine most of which would go to Russia which has expressed mostly contempt for Kyoto only signing because they had an opportuity to make huge bucks. Russia has done absolutely nothing to reduce pollution.

This is just perfect. Canada cannot win. They cannot stop the ecological disaster in Alberta. Under every scenario. Every option is humiliating.

Kyoto will stand for decades as the prime example of the grotesque stupdity of liberals. Actually that is a bit of a lie. Socialism owns that honor.

ANOTHER COOL aspect here is that liberals still don't see this train coming down the tracks. While Tony Blair gave two speeches warning the Kyoto crowd before their Montreal meeting last year that the next Kyoto treaty would NOT have mandatory limits Bill Clinton was too pre-occuupied to listen. Bill knew the meeting needed a boost so he flew in (private 727, Bill wants to reduce consumption but only for you and I)near the end to give the participants a rousing address to keep the faith.

I cannot imagine what he is thinking. He must not know how bad the numbers are outside the USA.

Kyoto is a trainwreck.

rdw: it's a piece of garbage and everyone knows its a piece of garbage . . . [it's] a trainwreck

Even if this were true, and it's just your opinion which as we've seen is worth squat, saying it's "defunct" or "dead" is a lie.

Period.

Just as your claim that DeWine is "pulling ahead" in Ohio polls is a lie.

Just as your claim that Strickland trailed all of his potential GOP opponents in the polls was a lie.

GWb has already created the Asian Pacific Partnership to replace it. This is one of the coolest examples of liberal stupidity of the last decade. it's a piece of garbage and everyone knows its a piece of garbage.

We are quite aware that the APP is a piece of garbage, designed to further the interests of energy companies at the expense of climate and the citizens of the participating countries.

You don't need to remind us.

Since the liberal party in Canada is in free fall it's unlikely we'll even hear them but there's no lack of fools in Europe.

Exactly what you said about the insurgents in Iraq over a year ago.

Look how well that prediction turned out!

ANOTHER COOL aspect here is that liberals still don't see this train coming down the tracks.

It's true. We don't see the imaginary trains that conservatives do. Shame. I'm sure they are beautiful, though utterly useless with respect to reality.

Every option is humiliating.

Pretty much describes the forecast for Bush's last three years!

He must not know how bad the numbers are outside the USA.

We all know about the 2000 plus troops killed in Iraq.

Quit reminding us of the obvious.

BTW, rdw, there is one reason and only one reason why Bush is focusing so much attention on Asia: a group of conservatives lead by Kissinger has invested a lot of time and money trying to develop Asian markets and funnels a lot of money into GOP campaign coffers.

It's no coincidence that a heavy GOP contributor turned out to be a Chinese spy.

Conservatives will sell their own kids to make a buck and keep a hold of power.

They have no hesitation whatsoever giving access to foreign spies.

Funny how conservatives made such a big deal abou the Gore campaign getting a pittance from a group of Asian Bhuddist monks, no friends to the communists who have discriminated against them at every turn, but meekly allow their own leadership to grant deep access to party institutions and operations to communist Chinese spies in return for millions of dollars.

You are a traitor to your country, rdw, and you support traitors to your country.

but you castigate Castro for not earning a lot of money, for practicing what he preaches,

No one castigated fidel for not making money. 1st off he's lying thru his teeth anyway. He's castigated for beng a moron. The real fun is castigating American liberals who've been supporting him for so many years, especially the Hollywood freaks. I cam remember Barbara Walters singing his praises. Typical liberal bimbo!

Castro is the best for conservatives!

Can you find a better representative for the left, socialism and post-68 liberalism? The folks on campus STILL think he's the right man at the right time.

My favorite questions for the fools who even think of praising him is to ask them about his 6 hour speeches. The ignorant windbag been giving 6 hour speeched since 1959. That's terror. No one sit's for a 6 hours speech unless they fear for their lives. No one gives a 6 hour speech unless they're a meglomaniac.

Among the many 'weapons' I've given my kids for who to deal with teachers in HS and college as well as other idiots for how to deal with people who support freaks like Fidel is to ask them about 6 hour speechs and what it says about Cuba.

In many ways Castro is even a bigger loser for liberals than Arafat. You have an unerring ability to pick the worlds worst losers. No doubt your a fan of Hugo!

rdw: The real fun is castigating American liberals who've been supporting him for so many years . . .

Another bald-faced lie.

You clearly can't help yourself, though, since mendacity is a fundamental characteristic of conservatism.

Can you find a better representative for the left, socialism and post-68 liberalism?

Thousands, since Castro is a representative for none of those things.

Another rdw special mendacity.

Among the many 'weapons' I've given my kids for who to deal with teachers in HS and college as well as other idiots for how to deal with people who support freaks like Fidel is to ask them about 6 hour speechs and what it says about Cuba.

Do you give them any 'weapons' to deal with idiots (like yourself, Bush 41, Cheney, Dumbsfeld, Reagan) who support freaks like Saddam Hussein, even when he's committing attempted genocide on the Kurds?

No, instead you lie to your kids by telling them the Left supports Castro.

It's a shameful parent who bears false witness against his neighbors to his kids.

You have an unerring ability to pick the worlds worst losers.

Nope. That honor goes to conservatives who actually supported financially and vocally leaders and regimes like Noriega, the Shah, Saddam, the Taliban, Pinochet, Rios Montt, the apartheid regimes of South Africa, the Nazis, the Saudi Monarchy, and a host of other petty murderous dictators and tyrants.

Liberals never gave a dime to Fidel, never defended him, never called him friend.

Conservatives did all of this and more for the regimes noted above.

Quit lying to your kids, rdw.

They will eventually find out and then what will you have?

Their contempt for your stupidity and mendacity.

rdw: No one castigated fidel for not making money.

Yes, you did.

You even lie about the very stuff you've written just minutes before!

1st off he's lying thru his teeth anyway.

Prove it.

rdw: In many ways Castro is even a bigger loser for liberals than Arafat.

News flash to rdw: Arafat is dead. Liberals never supported Arafat. Liberals never funded Arafat. Liberals never called Arafat a friend.

On the other hand . . .

Conservatives supported Saddam. Conservatives funded Saddam. Conservatives called Saddam their friend. Even while he was gassing the Kurds and killing tens of thousands of Iranians.

Tell your kids about that.

News flash to rdw: Arafat is dead. Liberals never supported Arafat. Liberals never funded Arafat. Liberals never called Arafat a friend.

Dead maybe. Forgotten? Never! Guess who was the number one visitor to Slick Willies Oval office? Guess who had an open invitation to address the UN at any time? Guess who won the Nobel Peace Prize? Guess who had the $2M Paris apartment and $1B numbered bank account. Guess who was the honored Celeb in every European Capital while ALL of these same people called Sharon a terrorist?

Guess who spent GWBs term asking Sharon for permission to flush his toilet?

Doesn't that really say it all? We've got Slick Willie, Jacques Chirac, Schroeder, Kofi Annan and the airhead Swedes on the selection committee played for total saps while GWB knew how to talk to the scum. Not at all!

He was not only the most frequently Oval Office visitor but he was on the speed dial. Who was that foreign leader on the phone with Slick Willie when Monica was doing her thing? Who else? Yasir!!

History will record these FACTS my friend. Conservatives have the videotape and will see to it.

Arafat and Castro will be remembered constantly by conservatives. They are simply too much fun!

You must be watching the events in Palestine with horror. We've got two mafia's, Hamas and Fatah , fighting for anything they can steal. They're so rotten even the French won't fund them. Of course the French are exactly swimming in cash either but the obvious fact is Europe is real tired of supporting the Palestinains and can see there's absolutely no end in sight. They are not capable of running a civilized society. They can stock weapons caches all over their territory but can't install a water or sewage pipe or pick up trash. They have a failed society with no hope of advancing as long as Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah exist.

Even the French have come to the realization they'll be funding them forever if they stay stuck on stupid.

Sharons plan will be fully implemented BEFORE GWB leaves office. The Jews don't trust the Democrats any more than most Americans. There will be a security fence. The jews will be safe and as has been happening for the last 3 years they will see robust economic growth and even better security.

The fence plays into all of Israels technical advantages, as well as the USA's. Every year we develop better cameras, sensors, drones, targeting technology, etc. The Israeli Army and the people are far safer behind the fence. The opposite is true on the other side of the fence. Murders have increased dramatically in Palestine and will continue at a high level until Hamas and Fatah come to an agreement or one kills off the other.

That math isn't very good. The Israeli economy is growing by over 6%. The Palestinains don't know what growth is. In 3 years Israeli GDP will be $24B higher. The West Banks GDP is $2B. Israeli defesne spending will increase by more than the Palestinian total economy. Because Israeli has pulled it's troops back and deactived its reserves it can allocate much more to increasing it's military technology edge.

Clearly Sharons fence will be a Godsend. The Israeli's will flourish and the Palestinians will have the civil war then need to have before they can evolve into a civilized society.

For the Europeans comes the realization they've been totally wrong and will have to deal with the consequences. Palestine remains their welfare state. Israel can defend itself now and will become impervious. Europe, with it's large and unhappy Islamic minority can face a nuclear armed Iran as best as it sees fit. They've always understood terrorism is a valid response to displeasure and terrorist will find an outlet.

Now they can chew on the fact the very same terrorists they've celebrated and supported may be unhappy with them. This is obvious from the car-b-ques, cartoons and other events. Islam has very serious issues with secular Europe. Will these terrorists, unable to hit Israel, strike in Europe? Will Iran champion the Palestinians? Will they champion the islamic minorities in Europe? Is that why they want (and seem to have) missles which are reach Paris? Is that why they must have nuclear arms? Will they share?

We know that they know if the were to use them against Israel, or seriously threaten Israel, Tehran will be toxically radioactive for 5,000 years. We do know GWB would have a similiar reactions. It seems far more likely these weapons are to be used in Europe for negotiations. Because they will negotiate.

rdw: Guess who was the number one visitor to Slick Willies Oval office?

If you are implying Arafat, you are lying.

Not surprising, though, since you lie constantly.

Guess who had an open invitation to address the UN at any time?

Meaningless drivel, even if true, which I doubt.

Guess who won the Nobel Peace Prize?

"Liberals" don't award this prize, so another rdw lie through implication.

Guess who had the $2M Paris apartment and $1B numbered bank account.

Again, the relevance? Are you saying the Paris landlord was a liberal? Are you saying the Swiss Bank or French Bank was liberal?

If so, you are as stupid as you are mendacious.

Guess who was the honored Celeb in every European Capital while ALL of these same people called Sharon a terrorist?

An even more pathetic lie than your previous ones.

But, guess what, Saddam was honored by Bush 41 and Reagan as a celebrity!

Yep, and they gave him money and international support while he was murdering and torturing and commiting all sorts of nasty crimes against humanity, more than Arafat even!

History will record these FACTS my friend. Conservatives have the videotape and will see to it.

Ahhh, you gave yourself away as a parody with this one!

A little too far.

But, very, very good!

AFG,

Just drove my daughter to work and Michael Medved had Mad Maddy on. The former Secretary of State has a book out. She did not like her interview. One of her 'excuses' or description of the root causes of the failed Palestinian society was the legacy of European colonalism. Michael pointed out quite quickly a dozen other cultures were subject to the same or worse forms of European colonialism without resorting to the barbarism of the Middle East. Mad Maddy changed the subject.

Yasir was the most frequent foreign guest of Slick willie AND Monica did get to hear one or more of their converations. Yasir did win the Nobel prize and all of the whackjobs associated with that committee regarding all awards are liberals. Sweden is in Europe if you didn't know. You can't gat more socialist outside Venezuela.

The relevence of Arafats wealth was the obvious character issue. Yasir was more than just a butcher. He was also a master thief. While he ensured the school kids in Palestine were instructed in suicide bombings his family was safely and luxuriously living in high society in Paris. Where in fact they remain today. Nice pension.

Yasir was very much the jet setter. He had two large military copters in his compound so he could get to the airport quickly and jet around. Gee, that was awful what Sharon did!. He destroyed both copters, the hangers and most of his compound. He had Yasir and 160 of his best friends trapped in a small two floor section of his headquarters and they cut the water off for a few weeks. 160 men and no toilets. Ugh!

Mad Maddy once humiliated herself chasing him down a corridor begging him to return to negotiate with Ehud.

I think it was 59 days before George asked Ariel, "are you going to let him flush a toilet yet?"

The good news is he played liberals for saps his entire life. The better news is GWB made sure he begged Sharon before he could wiped his ass the last 3 years. We all knew he was near death when Sharon let him leave. That's the only way he was getting out. The poor French were helpless.

Michael Medved also reminded Mad Maddy the West Bank was a prosperous and safe society before Arafat got there in 1993 thanks to Oslo. Not only was Oslo a diplomatic disaster is was an economic and social disaster for the people living in the West Bank.

It's hard to overstate the disasters of Bill Clinton. I don't know which is more embarrasing, North Korea or Oslo.

Hi, great site

rdw: It's hard to overstate the disasters of Bill Clinton.

You also give yourself away with this one.

The real rdw just loves Slick Willie.