Letters to the Editor
-
Gen. Petraeus will say what Cheney tells him to say...
Putting all these points together, I think it quite likely he will tell the truth. Since I also think that the truth is that we face a hopeless debacle in Iraq, I think that is what he will testify, toned down a bit by the reluctance of a military man to say any situation is hopeless.
He will be under orders to present Cheney's powerpoint(TM) slides. If he doesn't, he will be fired and a new patsy will be found.
-
those wacky flyboys and their crazy practical jokes
Dropping cluster bombs that look just like food packets:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2912617.stm
I don't know how they think this stuff up. Hilarious, I tell you.
-
Oh ye of Poco-brains
In 2004, David Petraeus said we were making progress.
In 2005, David Petraeus said we were making progress.
In 2006, David Petraeus said we were making progress.
In 2007, David Petraeus said we were making progress.
What has the General said that is factually incorrect?
If by "progress" he meant "Iraqi and American death tolls are rising" then he was telling the truth. Otherwise he lied. As in, most of what he said was "factually incorrect." By any objective measure, for *all* of Iraq (no, little-brains, you don't get to cherry-pick the district) things have gotten worse with each passing year.
Wasn't the dominant meme of war critics that Bush screwed up by 'not listening to the generals' and bringing too few troops into the country to control the post-war situation?
No, the dominant theme was “this is a highly schismed society, just like Yugoslavia. You’ll be stuck in a quagmire like Vietnam or the Balkans if you invade.” The idea that a bunch more troops (way more than we have there now) would be needed was valid, and might have helped if they were there from the beginning (and the “administrators” hadn’t disbanded the government, and if the troops had been trained in the local language, and if nation-building had been put before oil field exploitation, and if etc. ad nauseum).
At this point, more troops (unless you’re talking a million minimum) will not do any good.
Nobody is zigzagging except you. You keep trying to make it our fault that the neocon policies don’t work, but it is all on you and Preznit Shrubby and company. WE told you not to go in the first place. That’s as consistent as it gets.
So why don't you take your "where's the proof" mantra back to the nutjob hidey-hole you crawled out of. GlennG has more brains in his cerebellum than you have in your whole skull. Your ad hominems won't change that.
-
"Every Battle is Won Before its ever Fought, " Sun Tzu
The middle of a war is not the time to test new stratagem or to theorize about your approach. Our leaders say "mistakes were made," and I say thats hogwash, mistakes like the ones that were made should never have happened. How many soldiers were killed today because "mistakes were made" and how many more will die because mistakes were made. One thing about the Bush administration, they are predictable, and so is what Gen Patreaus is going to say, more of the SOS.
-
I'm just curious
Is it a common argument that Americans still living in Fantasyland make, that because more troops were called for before the War in Iraq was started, that the surge during the occupation (the war was over a long time ago, folks) must be supported?
I guess it doesn't matter that the political situation in Iraq has changed greatly? Or that the original number of soldiers called for was WAY above the numbers being proposed now?
That comment, if serious, just reeks of someone who can't see the world in anything but black and white. I doubt it was serious though. Seems trollish to me.
-
Real Lame spouts:
I can't think of a single word from anyone anywhere that wasn't agitprop, agendized or flat out lying
Nice try RealLame, but the fact that you can’t think of a single word [spoken in truth] says more about your lack of intellect and refusal to listen to non-neocon sources than it does about the information available.
For good measure, we know you’re a neocon troll. This “a pox on both your houses” bit won’t work. Neocons and their MSM whores have been lying about Iraq since day one. Liberals have been trying to tell the truth (and succeeding more than failing) the whole time. Trying to bring us down to your level is not only factually incorrect, but shows what a despicable human being you really are.
-
Houngan
No - only neocon trolls offer up such demented babblings as "argument." I take it from your letter that you are not a US citizen.
Please keep in mind that our media lied, often and loudly and at the behest of neocons, about starting Bush's war and continuing the occupation. Now that the truth is too big and nasty to ignore, most Americans (66%) favor ending it. Only 30% or so still support it. I personally believe some portion of them support it only because their information sources are Fox News and warmongering preachers. They never hear a counterargument except for the strawmen the neocons make to bash around.
By the way, welcome to the forum.
-
"Continued Progress" in graphs
My name links to a great blog post showing how much "Progress" we've really made. (Thanks, Ezra Klein!)
-
Rummy, is that you?
It has been explained over and over again, that steady, although uneven, progress was being made through the latter part of 2004 and and through 2005 and into the early part of 2006. -- noballzbabyf*cker, 7/19/07
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. -- Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03
Separated at birth, perhaps? Or merely graduates of the same school of circumlocution?
-
Judge Bates
Dismissed the Plame lawsuit...
When crafting the energy policy for America, Dick Cheney went behind closed, locked doors with the moguls of the energy industry. On at least six different occasions, those moguls belonged to the Enron Corporation, the company that is now the gold standard for corporate fraud. Enron stands accused of a variety of crimes, including the gerrymandering of the California energy grid; they darkened the state on several occasions to line their pockets. The General Accounting Office sued Cheney to try and get to the bottom of these meetings, so as to determine whether or not Enron and the others sought to bend American energy policies around their own profit motives, in defiance of the needs of the people.
Federal Judge and Bush appointee John D. Bates has thrown out the case, based on a separation of powers argument that claims the GAO "had not suffered any personal injury and had no genuine stake in the outcome of the litigation." Judge Bates spent two years working for Kenneth Starr and the Independent Counsel's office during the investigation into President Bill Clinton's sex life. Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code stipulates that a judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." That, and the incredible narrowness of the legal parameters of this decision, almost guarantees this case a contentious trip before the United States Supreme Court.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.11A.bates-cheney.htm