|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Prominent House Democrat Unveils Fresh Cut and Run Plan
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Prominent House Democrat Unveils Fresh Cut and Run Plan
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| VacateTheWord |
God forbid these Liberals wait for General Petraeus to issue his report. Jack Murtha is an absolute disgrace.
And it should also be mentioned - John Boehner is 100% right.
Murtha pushes new troop withdrawal plan
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
A leading Democratic House Iraq war critic said Wednesday he'll soon push legislation that would order U.S. troop withdrawals to begin in two months and predicted Republicans will swing behind it this time.
A vote on Rep. John Murtha's proposal will come as early as next week and possibly again in September, when Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus delivers a long-anticipated assessment on the war and members of Congress weigh some $142 billion in defense spending requested by President Bush.
Under his plan, Murtha, a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said that he envisions troop withdrawals to start in November and take about a year to complete.
The House has passed similar proposals in the past , including one that Bush vetoed. But Murtha said he predicts this vote will be different because of mounting voter frustration with the war and a lack of progress in Iraq.
"This is big time," Murtha, D-Pa., told reporters of the upcoming war debate in September. "When you get to September, this is history. This is when we're going to have a real confrontation with the president trying to work things out."
Bush has not given any indication he is open to a dramatic shift or a major redeployment of troops after September. He instead has talked at length about the need to remain engaged in Iraq to fight al-Qaida and has repeatedly appealed to lawmakers for more patience.
For their part, top U.S. military officers also have indicated that the troop buildup initiated this year may be needed through next summer.
Congressional Republican leaders have been willing to support Bush so far, although they concede keeping their rank-and-file in line behind the president will become considerably tougher come September.
In response to Murtha's proposal, House Republican Leader John Boehner said Democrats were ignoring progress in Iraq .
"If they are not listening to reports from our generals today, how does anyone believe they will make an honest and objective decision in September?" Boehner, R-Ohio, said. "Our national security is not a political football, and Republicans aren't going to treat it as such."
Murtha counters that he thinks Bush and GOP members will have no choice. To maintain current troop levels through 2008, Murtha predicted that combat tours would have to be extended from 15 months to 18 months — a politically unsavory position to take on an already deeply unpopular war.
The Defense Department has said that extending combat tours of troops would be a last resort.
Murtha said he will propose his measure as an amendment to the $460 billion annual military funding bill, which the House will take up next week. The bill does not include the $142 billion that Bush requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the House plans to consider separately this September.
Dividing military spending into two bills leaves open the possibility that Congress could withhold all or portions of the combat funds.
"We may decide in September we're not satisfied with what Gen. Petraeus says and we may hold it up," Murtha said.
In addition to the anti-war measure, Murtha said he also wants to add a provision to the annual funding bill that would require troops meet certain standards before being deployed and cut in half the $225 million budget for the Guantanamo Bay military prison.
Murtha's proposals keep with the Democratic strategy of taking an all-or-nothing approach on Iraq — a tack that leaves the party's members empty-handed for now but keeps it in lockstep with demands by anti-war groups. (Like the DailyKos and other nutroots)
Earlier this month, the House voted 223-201 to order troops out of Iraq beginning in 120 days. But the bill stalled in the Senate, where Democrats hold a thinner majority and Republicans blocked the measure from advancing.
Instead of embracing bipartisan alternatives, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dropped the Iraq debate altogether. Pelosi, D-Calif., turned her attention to other war-related Democratic bills.
The House on Wednesday voted 399-24 to pass a bill by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., that would ban permanent bases in Iraq. By week's end, the House Armed Services Committee planned to draft legislation for a vote next week that would insist troops be given sufficient time at home in between combat tours.
Left on the cutting room floor are several bipartisan proposals that could challenge Bush on Iraq and which have attracted GOP support.
Among them is a House proposal that would require Bush to deliver within 60 days a new military strategy that would end major combat and refocuses troops on fighting terrorists. Rep. Phil English, R-Pa., this week signed on as a co-sponsor.
Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and John Warner, R-Va., support a similar proposal.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq |
|
|
| zimmie |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
God forbid these Liberals wait for General Petraeus to issue his report. Jack Murtha is an absolute disgrace.
And it should also be mentioned - John Boehner is 100% right.
Murtha pushes new troop withdrawal plan
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
A leading Democratic House Iraq war critic said Wednesday he'll soon push legislation that would order U.S. troop withdrawals to begin in two months and predicted Republicans will swing behind it this time.
A vote on Rep. John Murtha's proposal will come as early as next week and possibly again in September, when Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus delivers a long-anticipated assessment on the war and members of Congress weigh some $142 billion in defense spending requested by President Bush.
Under his plan, Murtha, a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said that he envisions troop withdrawals to start in November and take about a year to complete.
The House has passed similar proposals in the past , including one that Bush vetoed. But Murtha said he predicts this vote will be different because of mounting voter frustration with the war and a lack of progress in Iraq.
"This is big time," Murtha, D-Pa., told reporters of the upcoming war debate in September. "When you get to September, this is history. This is when we're going to have a real confrontation with the president trying to work things out."
Bush has not given any indication he is open to a dramatic shift or a major redeployment of troops after September. He instead has talked at length about the need to remain engaged in Iraq to fight al-Qaida and has repeatedly appealed to lawmakers for more patience.
For their part, top U.S. military officers also have indicated that the troop buildup initiated this year may be needed through next summer.
Congressional Republican leaders have been willing to support Bush so far, although they concede keeping their rank-and-file in line behind the president will become considerably tougher come September.
In response to Murtha's proposal, House Republican Leader John Boehner said Democrats were ignoring progress in Iraq .
"If they are not listening to reports from our generals today, how does anyone believe they will make an honest and objective decision in September?" Boehner, R-Ohio, said. "Our national security is not a political football, and Republicans aren't going to treat it as such."
Murtha counters that he thinks Bush and GOP members will have no choice. To maintain current troop levels through 2008, Murtha predicted that combat tours would have to be extended from 15 months to 18 months — a politically unsavory position to take on an already deeply unpopular war.
The Defense Department has said that extending combat tours of troops would be a last resort.
Murtha said he will propose his measure as an amendment to the $460 billion annual military funding bill, which the House will take up next week. The bill does not include the $142 billion that Bush requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the House plans to consider separately this September.
Dividing military spending into two bills leaves open the possibility that Congress could withhold all or portions of the combat funds.
"We may decide in September we're not satisfied with what Gen. Petraeus says and we may hold it up," Murtha said.
In addition to the anti-war measure, Murtha said he also wants to add a provision to the annual funding bill that would require troops meet certain standards before being deployed and cut in half the $225 million budget for the Guantanamo Bay military prison.
Murtha's proposals keep with the Democratic strategy of taking an all-or-nothing approach on Iraq — a tack that leaves the party's members empty-handed for now but keeps it in lockstep with demands by anti-war groups. (Like the DailyKos and other nutroots)
Earlier this month, the House voted 223-201 to order troops out of Iraq beginning in 120 days. But the bill stalled in the Senate, where Democrats hold a thinner majority and Republicans blocked the measure from advancing.
Instead of embracing bipartisan alternatives, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dropped the Iraq debate altogether. Pelosi, D-Calif., turned her attention to other war-related Democratic bills.
The House on Wednesday voted 399-24 to pass a bill by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., that would ban permanent bases in Iraq. By week's end, the House Armed Services Committee planned to draft legislation for a vote next week that would insist troops be given sufficient time at home in between combat tours.
Left on the cutting room floor are several bipartisan proposals that could challenge Bush on Iraq and which have attracted GOP support.
Among them is a House proposal that would require Bush to deliver within 60 days a new military strategy that would end major combat and refocuses troops on fighting terrorists. Rep. Phil English, R-Pa., this week signed on as a co-sponsor.
Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and John Warner, R-Va., support a similar proposal.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq |
[IMG]http://www.suzyrice.com/BIRD/archives/500wde_JohnMurtha-
CodePink_MostCorruptInCongress.jpg[/IMG]
 |
|
|
| zimmie |
 |
|
|
| atomizer |
| Prominent White House Liars Unveil Stale Stay and Fail Plan. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
| Werent you already trying to get a two month extension to the September report anyway? The Iraq Study Group Report was released a long ass time ago, when are we going to implement that? Is James Baker a liberal? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
|
:lol:
Jack Murtha
:lol: |
|
|
| atomizer |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
:lol:
Jack Murtha
:lol: |
Have you served in our military? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
[B]God forbid these Liberals wait for General Petraeus to issue his report. |
Patraeus has met with Senators already. Ask GOP Senator Snow. She's made her conclusions already.
:opps:
Kinda like Republican Senators Domenici, Lugar, Warner, Voinovich, etc.....
:rolleyes:
What a dumb Cunt you are Vacate. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Werent you already trying to get a two month extension to the September report anyway? |
One of Petraeus' commanders said he wouldn't be able to give a realisitic assessment in his area until November at the earliest. So really the September report will be 'incomplete.' That being said, what John Boehner said was right - (paraphrasing) these Democrats have already made up their minds. Even if Petraeus has a glowing report that said this is the perfect strategy and stakes his life on it working, the Democrats won't listen.
Pathetic.
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
The Iraq Study Group Report |
 |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VaCuntTheWord
That being said, what John Boehner said was right - (paraphrasing) these Democrats have already made up their minds. |
...but no republicans have made up their's, right? Typical RWAA.
Hypocrite Cunt Faggot.
:ps: |
|
|
| atomizer |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
One of Petraeus' commanders said he wouldn't be able to give a realisitic assessment in his area until November at the earliest. So really the September report will be 'incomplete.' That being said, what John Boehner said was right - (paraphrasing) these Democrats have already made up their minds. Even if Petraeus has a glowing report that said this is the perfect strategy and stakes his life on it working, the Democrats won't listen.
Pathetic.
|
Failure Monkeys! Starring poorly photoshopped pictures of dick, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowicz, LPaul Bremmer, VacantofLogic... |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
The criticism of Murtha might actually hold water if it weren't coming from a shameless whore chickenhawk and a guy who told us he served in the military at age 3.
The Iraqi people want us out.
The Iraqi parliament voted us out.
The Iraqi Prime Minister says we can go.
Mission accomplished. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
GOOD FOR MURTHA!
The war and Bush's handling of it is a complete embarrassing failure for the US.
Get the fuck out and screw all you chicken hawk bastards who are endangering our kids in uniform.
I can't even make a calm rebuttal to this because I'm so sick and fed up with you Bushaholic dumbfucks. :fu: |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
One of Petraeus' commanders said he wouldn't be able to give a realisitic assessment in his area until November at the earliest. So really the September report will be 'incomplete.' That being said, what John Boehner said was right - (paraphrasing) these Democrats have already made up their minds. Even if Petraeus has a glowing report that said this is the perfect strategy and stakes his life on it working, the Democrats won't listen.
Pathetic.
|
Yes, I am very aware of what the right wing media told you waht to think, but how is James Bakker in any way some liberal? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
...but no republicans have made up their's, right? Typical RWAA.
Hypocrite Cunt Faggot.
:ps: |
None of the Republican Senators you mentioned are seeking to legislate defeat. I don't remember which one, but either Senator Luger or Senator Warner drafted legislation that would require the President to change the mission by late fall if significant progress wasn't being made. In other words, they came up with a compromise - a compromise that Harry Reid was completely unwilling to entertain. Once Reed-Levin failed, he pulled the issue from the table altogether without giving the other legislation (amendments, really) a vote.
Face it, your Democrat Senate and House seek cut and run, and nothing short of that.
In any case, I give you credit for being a man of principle and supporting your fellow Demcrats, no matter how disgraceful they are behaving. |
|
|
| WillowGlen |
| Now I know where VTW cut and ran to when he had his ass handed to him again in the Attorney general thread. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
| Did John Boner cry this time? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd
In other words, they came up with a compromise - |
...so in other words they didn't need to "wait 'til September" to come to certain conclusions...
:opps:
Thanks for backing me up and exposing what a REPEATED MISLEADING LYING SACK OF SHIT you are.
Go (fuck yourself).
"MementoTheTurd"....:
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
VacateTheTurd is like the guy in "Memento"....he forgets completely what has happened the previous day (the thrashings, the facts, the DEBUNKINGS, etc.), but he has the republicunt talking points (LIES) tattooed on his body so he can parrot them out for another bright and shining day... |
"...4 out of five brigades...take and hold...new strategy...wait 'til September..."
"Do not listen to his LIES..."
The Memento Turd: just another pile of :shit:
 |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Here it is in very simple language that even Bush and his stooges can understand:
THE WAR IN IRAQ IS WRONG. IF YOU ARE STILL WILLING TO SUPPORT THE WAR, KNOWING WHAT WE NOW KNOW, YOU ARE A DUMBFUCK! |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Here it is in very simple language that even Bush and his stooges can understand:
THE WAR IN IRAQ IS WRONG. IF YOU ARE STILL WILLING TO SUPPORT THE WAR, KNOWING WHAT WE NOW KNOW, YOU ARE A DUMBFUCK! |
Fighting Al Qaeda (in Iraq) is "wrong?"
Please explain. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Fighting Al Qaeda (in Iraq) is "wrong?"
Please explain. |
Fuck off and die plz.
Go. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
...so in other words they didn't need to "wait 'til September" to come to certain conclusions...
:opps:
Thanks for backing me up and exposing what a REPEATED MISLEADING LYING SACK OF SHIT you are.
Go (fuck yourself).
"MementoTheTurd"....:
"...4 out of five brigades...take and hold...new strategy...wait 'til September..."
"Do not listen to his LIES..."
The Memento Turd: just another pile of :shit:
|
Wrong Fdubya - you were tossing in Senators in with the Democrat plan who came up with their own compromise. To do so is disingenuous - well, par for the course for you.
Nice try. |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Wrong Fdubya - you were tossing in Senators in with the Democrat plan who came up with their own compromise. To do so is disingenuous - well, par for the course for you.
Nice try. |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-b...-t_b_56676.html |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Wrong Fdubya - you were tossing in Senators in with the Democrat plan who came up with their own compromise. To do so is disingenuous - well, par for the course for you.
Nice try. |
LYING CUNT.
You claim (like the ignorant fucking stooge and cock-sucker that you are) that it is impossible to come to any conclusions BEFORE Sept. ....
...yet numerous REPUBLICANS have done just that.
The specifics are irrelevant. Conclusions are conclusions. Therefore you are a REPEATED LIAR.
Not only that, but your premise (even in a complete vacuum) is the product of a brainwashed, ignorant, half-ass Nazi "mind".
Its one of your more laughable and pathetic assertions (and there are a LOT of those!).
Go fuck off and die now.
Thnx. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Fighting Al Qaeda (in Iraq) is "wrong?"
Please explain. |
AQ in Iraq was a complete non-issue until we showed up. If you want to keep defending the war, please refer back to my previous post. |
|
|
| atomizer |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
God forbid these Liberals wait for General Petraeus to issue his report. Jack Murtha is an absolute disgrace.
And it should also be mentioned - John Boehner is 100% right.
Murtha pushes new troop withdrawal plan
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
A leading Democratic House Iraq war critic said Wednesday he'll soon push legislation that would order U.S. troop withdrawals to begin in two months and predicted Republicans will swing behind it this time.
A vote on Rep. John Murtha's proposal will come as early as next week and possibly again in September, when Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus delivers a long-anticipated assessment on the war and members of Congress weigh some $142 billion in defense spending requested by President Bush.
Under his plan, Murtha, a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said that he envisions troop withdrawals to start in November and take about a year to complete.
The House has passed similar proposals in the past , including one that Bush vetoed. But Murtha said he predicts this vote will be different because of mounting voter frustration with the war and a lack of progress in Iraq.
"This is big time," Murtha, D-Pa., told reporters of the upcoming war debate in September. "When you get to September, this is history. This is when we're going to have a real confrontation with the president trying to work things out."
Bush has not given any indication he is open to a dramatic shift or a major redeployment of troops after September. He instead has talked at length about the need to remain engaged in Iraq to fight al-Qaida and has repeatedly appealed to lawmakers for more patience.
For their part, top U.S. military officers also have indicated that the troop buildup initiated this year may be needed through next summer.
Congressional Republican leaders have been willing to support Bush so far, although they concede keeping their rank-and-file in line behind the president will become considerably tougher come September.
In response to Murtha's proposal, House Republican Leader John Boehner said Democrats were ignoring progress in Iraq .
"If they are not listening to reports from our generals today, how does anyone believe they will make an honest and objective decision in September?" Boehner, R-Ohio, said. "Our national security is not a political football, and Republicans aren't going to treat it as such."
Murtha counters that he thinks Bush and GOP members will have no choice. To maintain current troop levels through 2008, Murtha predicted that combat tours would have to be extended from 15 months to 18 months — a politically unsavory position to take on an already deeply unpopular war.
The Defense Department has said that extending combat tours of troops would be a last resort.
Murtha said he will propose his measure as an amendment to the $460 billion annual military funding bill, which the House will take up next week. The bill does not include the $142 billion that Bush requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the House plans to consider separately this September.
Dividing military spending into two bills leaves open the possibility that Congress could withhold all or portions of the combat funds.
"We may decide in September we're not satisfied with what Gen. Petraeus says and we may hold it up," Murtha said.
In addition to the anti-war measure, Murtha said he also wants to add a provision to the annual funding bill that would require troops meet certain standards before being deployed and cut in half the $225 million budget for the Guantanamo Bay military prison.
Murtha's proposals keep with the Democratic strategy of taking an all-or-nothing approach on Iraq — a tack that leaves the party's members empty-handed for now but keeps it in lockstep with demands by anti-war groups. (Like the DailyKos and other nutroots)
Earlier this month, the House voted 223-201 to order troops out of Iraq beginning in 120 days. But the bill stalled in the Senate, where Democrats hold a thinner majority and Republicans blocked the measure from advancing.
Instead of embracing bipartisan alternatives, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dropped the Iraq debate altogether. Pelosi, D-Calif., turned her attention to other war-related Democratic bills.
The House on Wednesday voted 399-24 to pass a bill by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., that would ban permanent bases in Iraq. By week's end, the House Armed Services Committee planned to draft legislation for a vote next week that would insist troops be given sufficient time at home in between combat tours.
Left on the cutting room floor are several bipartisan proposals that could challenge Bush on Iraq and which have attracted GOP support.
Among them is a House proposal that would require Bush to deliver within 60 days a new military strategy that would end major combat and refocuses troops on fighting terrorists. Rep. Phil English, R-Pa., this week signed on as a co-sponsor.
Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and John Warner, R-Va., support a similar proposal.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq |
Prominent SFN Weirdo Reads Obscure Corporate News Post and Reacts.
Subhead: He has Nothing Left. Editorial Page from Mobile, Alabama Daily Bigot to be Posted Soon |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
 |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
:lol:
Jack Murtha
:lol: |
The fucker fought in viet nam.
where did the likes of liar zimmie and vacunt the coward fight?
You republicunts are fucking pathetic losers who have NO idea what it's like to sacrifice anything. Fucking scum. |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
Quote: Originally posted by ChaseDC
You republicunts are fucking pathetic losers who have NO idea what it's like to sacrifice anything. Fucking scum. |
My sentiments exactly. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
AQ in Iraq was a complete non-issue until we showed up. |
What about that do you not understand, VTW? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
What about that do you not understand, VTW? |
Here's what I "don't understand," and perhaps you can explain it.
What difference does it make now whether Al Qaeda had a sizeable force in Iraq before we invaded? I'm not going to re-litigate the reasons for the invasion, so don't even ask.
The point is we are where we are, and it is what it is. Al Qaeda has a strong presence in Iraq and we need to deal with that reality.
Beyond taking the fight to them, what do you propose we do?
Just because we routed Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and they took shelter in Pakistan, does that mean that we shouldn't go after them if the opportunity presents itself?
This is the apparent disconnect - you want to go back in time and argue about what could have or should have been done. It's too late for that. The question is - what do we do from here, not what should we have done 4 fucking years ago. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd
What difference does it make now whether Al Qaeda had a sizeable force in Iraq before we invaded? |
...only ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE UNIVERSE, Cunt-Lip.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
What difference does it make now whether Al Qaeda had a sizeable force in Iraq before we invaded? |
:lol: :lol:
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
I'm not going to re-litigate the reasons for the invasion, so don't even ask. |
I wonder why! :lol: :lol: |
|
|
| atomizer |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Here's what I "don't understand," and perhaps you can explain it.
What difference does it make now whether Al Qaeda had a sizeable force in Iraq before we invaded? . |
Shocking. Thanks for everything. |
|
|
| mingmen |
| Yeah, VTW-who cares about effective leadership :rolleyes: |
|
|
| atomizer |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
Yeah, VTW-who cares about effective leadership :rolleyes: |
Leave alone the truth, ming. What a nightmare. Now the most stringent proponents are running screaming from their reasons. |
|
|
| Bongo |
What stikes me is the Congress is trying to enact the will of the people. It is the people who feel this war is a failure and our troops are trying to ref a civil war. If Gen. Petraeus comes out in Septmeber and can show good progress, less of our soliders are dying and the Iraqi goverment passes some significant benchmarks, then the people might tell Congress to give the President more time.
Its also worth noting Republicans are on track to more then double the previous record of Senate filibusters. |
|
|
| otherone4life |
| fear and smear ...guess all the R's that are jumping ship are cut and runners too (Lugar, Voinicich, Domenici, etc ...) |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Here's what I "don't understand," and perhaps you can explain it.
What difference does it make now whether Al Qaeda had a sizeable force in Iraq before we invaded? I'm not going to re-litigate the reasons for the invasion, so don't even ask.
The point is we are where we are, and it is what it is. Al Qaeda has a strong presence in Iraq and we need to deal with that reality.
Beyond taking the fight to them, what do you propose we do?
Just because we routed Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and they took shelter in Pakistan, does that mean that we shouldn't go after them if the opportunity presents itself?
This is the apparent disconnect - you want to go back in time and argue about what could have or should have been done. It's too late for that. The question is - what do we do from here, not what should we have done 4 fucking years ago. |
Yeah, whatever you do, "don't ask" why your hero CREATED more terrorism and more terrorists.... god forbid you might have a breakthrough and a rational thought might come out of that hollow skull of yours. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Here's what I "don't understand," and perhaps you can explain it.
What difference does it make now whether Al Qaeda had a sizeable force in Iraq before we invaded? I'm not going to re-litigate the reasons for the invasion, so don't even ask.
The point is we are where we are, and it is what it is. Al Qaeda has a strong presence in Iraq and we need to deal with that reality.
Beyond taking the fight to them, what do you propose we do?
Just because we routed Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and they took shelter in Pakistan, does that mean that we shouldn't go after them if the opportunity presents itself?
This is the apparent disconnect - you want to go back in time and argue about what could have or should have been done. It's too late for that. The question is - what do we do from here, not what should we have done 4 fucking years ago. |
If we left Iraq, the most important thing that would happen is that fewer young Americans would die.
Anything else is secondary. Understand that.
There would be more troops available to hunt down and kill THE ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11.
On the downside, we would have to suffer the embarrassment of ever fucking up the the region around the Persian Gulf. But America is strong and we can do that and come away better than ever.
We have a lot of shit to answer for.
And that's the truth. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
On the downside, we would have to suffer the embarrassment of ever fucking up the the region around the Persian Gulf. |
...Halliburton "revenue" :giggle: will take a hit...
:( |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
...only ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE UNIVERSE, Cunt-Lip.
:rolleyes: |
How so?
See - this is the problem with Liberals. They can take the stage at a debate and have a big Bush-bashing fest and bash the war (even though many up there voted for it) and their "solution" to the "mistake" is to undo it - pull all the troops out.
What they don't have an answer for is what happens after we leave and there is no recognition of the national security interests we have in the region.
So stay stuck on stupid and keep trying to re-litigate the rationale for going into Iraq in the first place. That's the best way to figure out how to move forward.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Yeah, whatever you do, "don't ask" why your hero CREATED more terrorism and more terrorists.... god forbid you might have a breakthrough and a rational thought might come out of that hollow skull of yours. |
Yeah, the threat was President Bush's creation. That's why 9/11 happened - because we were in Iraq, right?
Moron. |
|
|
| mr wrong |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Here's what I "don't understand," and perhaps you can explain it.
What difference does it make now whether Al Qaeda had a sizeable force in Iraq before we invaded? I'm not going to re-litigate the reasons for the invasion, so don't even ask.
The point is we are where we are, and it is what it is. Al Qaeda has a strong presence in Iraq and we need to deal with that reality.
Beyond taking the fight to them, what do you propose we do?
Just because we routed Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and they took shelter in Pakistan, does that mean that we shouldn't go after them if the opportunity presents itself?
This is the apparent disconnect - you want to go back in time and argue about what could have or should have been done. It's too late for that. The question is - what do we do from here, not what should we have done 4 fucking years ago. |
Yeah, I'm sure the 3500+ families that lost a loved one can really take solace in that.
Funny that when it comes to Clinton, you're prepared to go back 10 years, and completely insulate Bush from ANY wrongdoing and accountability whatsoever during the last 6.
I'm just at a complete loss for words with this "logic" of yours. I'm not gonna call you any names, because I sincerely feel sorry for you. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
If we left Iraq, the most important thing that would happen is that fewer young Americans would die.
Anything else is secondary. Understand that.
There would be more troops available to hunt down and kill THE ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11.
On the downside, we would have to suffer the embarrassment of ever fucking up the the region around the Persian Gulf. But America is strong and we can do that and come away better than ever.
We have a lot of shit to answer for.
And that's the truth. |
Well thank you for addressing the real issue, which is how do we proceed from here.
Look, it's easy to say "get the troops out of harm's way." I don't know anybody, who is either for or against a percipitous withdrawal, that doesn't want the troops home safe as soon as possible.
So we divert our resources to "the ones responsible for 9/11," or Al Qaeda in the tribal areas in Pakistan. First of all we have a NATO force in Afghanistan, so it's not as if we left Afghanistan completely - there has been a sizeable force there all along. The difficulty has been the politics involved - the question of whether to go into the tribal areas (and thus officially invade Pakistan) and take care of business. The concern is that Musharraf could be overthrown and extremists could take over with access to a nuclear arsenal. We all know that if we weren't concerned about the stability of the Pakistani government that we would have gone in years ago and cleaned house. There are rumblings that we may go in soon, especially since the Taliban (and Al Qaeda) broke the cease fire agreement and thus are giving Musharraf the rationale to take them out. Hopefully we'll see the end of Al Qaeda in Pakistan and the Taliban. We'll see.
The other question is what we leave behind in Iraq - the dominant thinking among Liberals, it seems, is that they should "work out their differences" and do business with the government that emerges. The danger in leaving Iraq in a percipitous way is not only a failed state, but a regional war involving Iran, Sunni states like Saudi Arabia and conflict between the Kurds and Turkey. Then Iran could unleash Hezbollah (which has reconstituted it's missle arsenal - thanks to the United Nations) on Israel and all hell could break loose. Another real possibility is Al Qaeda getting a safe haven in Anbar province where the can train and plan for attacks against the US and our allies (see the recent NIE regarding their intentions).
You may think that "we have a lot of shit to answer for," but if Iraq was indeed a mistake, then is it logical to follow one mistake with another, which would be to turn our backs on the Iraqis and leave them to the terrorists and death squads? If the argument is that we are "creating more terrorists" via our invasion, does anyone think we will gain support if we bail out and leave a genocide behind?
These are all real consequences of complete withdrawal from Iraq - and the Democrats who have espoused cut and run should be able to answer these questions - what happens in the event of a genocide, or a regional war and so on? What then?? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by mr wrong
Yeah, I'm sure the 3500+ families that lost a loved one can really take solace in that.
Funny that when it comes to Clinton, you're prepared to go back 10 years, and completely insulate Bush from ANY wrongdoing and accountability whatsoever during the last 6.
I'm just at a complete loss for words with this "logic" of yours. I'm not gonna call you any names, because I sincerely feel sorry for you. |
I'll only "go back 10 years" and review Clinton's strategy when people bring up how much better he handled terrorism (which is a joke). Personally, I see no point to re-litigating Clinton's conduct. Well, I see no point until people bring up how "great" the 90's were (again, a joke). |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
How so?
See - this is the problem with Liberals. They can take the stage at a debate and have a big Bush-bashing fest and bash the war (even though many up there voted for it) and their "solution" to the "mistake" is to undo it - pull all the troops out.
What they don't have an answer for is what happens after we leave and there is no recognition of the national security interests we have in the region.
So stay stuck on stupid and keep trying to re-litigate the rationale for going into Iraq in the first place. That's the best way to figure out how to move forward.
:rolleyes: |
One thing that will happen is that AlQaeda in Iraq will lose it's greatest recruitment tool and quickly become less effective as a whole.
And, nobody is reasonably making a case for IMMEDIATE withdrawl. We need to think in terms of just and honorable withdrawl. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Yeah, the threat was President Bush's creation. That's why 9/11 happened - because we were in Iraq, right?
Moron. |
Ballbag,
There was NO al qaeda in Iraq before BUSH invaded.
It is beyond sad that you are still struggling with such basic facts. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Well thank you for addressing the real issue, which is how do we proceed from here.
Look, it's easy to say "get the troops out of harm's way." I don't know anybody, who is either for or against a percipitous withdrawal, that doesn't want the troops home safe as soon as possible.
So we divert our resources to "the ones responsible for 9/11," or Al Qaeda in the tribal areas in Pakistan. First of all we have a NATO force in Afghanistan, so it's not as if we left Afghanistan completely - there has been a sizeable force there all along. The difficulty has been the politics involved - the question of whether to go into the tribal areas (and thus officially invade Pakistan) and take care of business. The concern is that Musharraf could be overthrown and extremists could take over with access to a nuclear arsenal. We all know that if we weren't concerned about the stability of the Pakistani government that we would have gone in years ago and cleaned house. There are rumblings that we may go in soon, especially since the Taliban (and Al Qaeda) broke the cease fire agreement and thus are giving Musharraf the rationale to take them out. Hopefully we'll see the end of Al Qaeda in Pakistan and the Taliban. We'll see.
The other question is what we leave behind in Iraq - the dominant thinking among Liberals, it seems, is that they should "work out their differences" and do business with the government that emerges. The danger in leaving Iraq in a percipitous way is not only a failed state, but a regional war involving Iran, Sunni states like Saudi Arabia and conflict between the Kurds and Turkey. Then Iran could unleash Hezbollah (which has reconstituted it's missle arsenal - thanks to the United Nations) on Israel and all hell could break loose. Another real possibility is Al Qaeda getting a safe haven in Anbar province where the can train and plan for attacks against the US and our allies (see the recent NIE regarding their intentions).
You may think that "we have a lot of shit to answer for," but if Iraq was indeed a mistake, then is it logical to follow one mistake with another, which would be to turn our backs on the Iraqis and leave them to the terrorists and death squads? If the argument is that we are "creating more terrorists" via our invasion, does anyone think we will gain support if we bail out and leave a genocide behind?
These are all real consequences of complete withdrawal from Iraq - and the Democrats who have espoused cut and run should be able to answer these questions - what happens in the event of a genocide, or a regional war and so on? What then?? |
We originally diverted resources for capturing THE ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11 to go into Iraq and oust Saddam. Hindsight has shown that, although he was a horrible person, he was (weirdly enough) a stabilizing presence.
By thinking in terms of JUST and HONORABLE withdrawl instead of IMMEDIATE withdrawl, the whole "cut and run" rhetoric is nullified. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
One thing that will happen is that AlQaeda in Iraq will lose it's greatest recruitment tool and quickly become less effective as a whole.
And, nobody is reasonably making a case for IMMEDIATE withdrawl. We need to think in terms of just and honorable withdrawl. |
See again, we weren't in Iraq before 9/11. The point being - it doesn't seem that they were having "recruiting problems" before we invaded Iraq. Would you at least recognize that reality? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Ballbag,
There was NO al qaeda in Iraq before BUSH invaded.
It is beyond sad that you are still struggling with such basic facts. |
Al Qaeda wasn't in Pakistan until we invaded Afghanistan.
What the fuck is your point, anyway? That if we leave they'll dissolve as a terror group and pursue other interests? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Hindsight has shown that, although he was a horrible person, he was (weirdly enough) a stabilizing presence.
|
common knowledge pre-invasion |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Al Qaeda wasn't in Pakistan until we invaded Afghanistan. |
They were not in Iraq until we invaded Iraq. You are not too bright. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
See again, we weren't in Iraq before 9/11. The point being - it doesn't seem that they were having "recruiting problems" before we invaded Iraq. Would you at least recognize that reality? |
None of this justifies this horribly botched invasion and occupation. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
They were not in Iraq until we invaded Iraq. You are not too bright. |
He also has no proof Al quaeda wasn't in Pakistan , they had 43 known cells all over the world. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
He also has no proof Al quaeda wasn't in Pakistan , they had 43 known cells all over the world. |
I was referring to Bin Laden and his cadre. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
None of this justifies this horribly botched invasion and occupation. :rolleyes: |
Yes but you still have failed to answer for what happens if we bail out. Care to do so?
While you are considering that, why not build a time machine so you can go back 4 years. Discussing the invasion would be relevant back then - it is pointless now. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
I was referring to Bin Laden and his cadre. |
I thought they were the ones directly controlling AQ in Iraq. All the same thing right? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Yes but you still have failed to answer for what happens if we bail out. Care to do so? |
There is absolutely nothing we can do but nuance our position to save a modicum of face. We cannot leave ever-due to a catastrophic failure in leadership. I will give you 3 guesses under whose watch this happened. First 2 don't count. We will be in Iraq forever-not in small part due to what is buried under the soil. The impossible task set forth by this administration guarantees failure.
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
While you are considering that, why not build a time machine so you can go back 4 years. Discussing the invasion would be relevant back then - it is pointless now. |
You are right, let us talk Clinton. Or is that too far back for you? :rolleyes:
Pointless? What happened to accountability? Or is that only for blow jobs? |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Yes but you still have failed to answer for what happens if we bail out. Care to do so?
While you are considering that, why not build a time machine so you can go back 4 years. Discussing the invasion would be relevant back then - it is pointless now. |
So you think those 43+ cells just dried up and ran to Iraq to fight us there huh ? I got news for you, the so called Al Quaeda that Bush refers to in Iraq aren't the same ones that attacked us on 911, they are basically the old republican guard and citizens that lost their jobs to our invasion, if your chimp and chief would have kept the Iraq military intact and used them instead of bringing in private for profit multi national corporations....we wouldn't be in this fucking mess...try to keep up |
|
|
| zimmie |
| yawn.....The last 2 wars the liberals started (Korea and VietNam) got over 100,000 Americans killed. Now their bastard children (punks) don't realize a real threat to our nation. |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
yawn.....The last 2 wars the liberals started (Korea and VietNam) got over 100,000 Americans killed. Now their bastard children (punks) don't realize a real threat to our nation. |
The biggest threat to this country is the stupidity of ass wipes like you, brainless fuck. |
|
|
| AcquiringSignal |
 |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
See again, we weren't in Iraq before 9/11. The point being - it doesn't seem that they were having "recruiting problems" before we invaded Iraq. Would you at least recognize that reality? |
Al Qaeda in Iraq was NOT an issue before we got there. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" was created after our presence and will probably be a relative non-issue after we leave. The Al Qaeda that we should've been after, we let go in order to go into Iraq. Our mission in Iraq had NOTHING to do with fighting AlQaeda. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Yeah, the threat was President Bush's creation. That's why 9/11 happened - because we were in Iraq, right?
Moron. |
No. Iraq and 9/11 are totally unrelated.
9/11 is binLaden's work....Iraq is ours.
But, to answer your question: Yes, the threat in Iraq WAS Bush's creation. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
yawn.....The last 2 wars the liberals started (Korea and VietNam) got over 100,000 Americans killed. Now their bastard children (punks) don't realize a real threat to our nation. |
And all of you whose greatest ambition is to be George W Bush's tampon will not rest until the casualty numbers approach those in Viet Nam and Korea.
Our presence in Iraq IS NOT worth the sacrifices made by the troops...BOTTOM LINE! |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
yawn.....The last 2 wars the liberals started (Korea and VietNam) got over 100,000 Americans killed. Now their bastard children (punks) don't realize a real threat to our nation. |
YOU'RE APPROVING IRAQ BECAUSE THE DEM'S STARTED 2 UNJUST WARS IN THE PAST?!?
Let the big boys argue in this thread, Zimmie. Go watch Spongebob Queerpants, instead. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
yawn.....The last 2 wars the liberals started (Korea and VietNam) got over 100,000 Americans killed. Now their bastard children (punks) don't realize a real threat to our nation. |
Dear SFN,
I'm sorry that I keep coming back to this quote but the total stupidity of it is making me mental.
Zimmie, why just go back 2 wars? It was also a Dem who got us into WWII.
However, this fact should help even a dunce like you see the problem: The Japanese attacked and we entered WWII.
Going to Iraq because of 9/11 would be the same as Japan attacking us and we retaliate by attacking Mexico. |
|
|
| cunning lingo |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
No. Iraq and 9/11 are totally unrelated.
9/11 is binLaden's work....Iraq is ours.
But, to answer your question: Yes, the threat in Iraq WAS Bush's creation. |
Not to stick up for Bush, but didn't damn near the entire congress, including Kerry ( the 1st time,lol), Clinton, and the rest vote on Iraq- support / release the funds? |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by cunning lingo
Not to stick up for Bush, but didn't damn near the entire congress, including Kerry ( the 1st time,lol), Clinton, and the rest vote on Iraq- support / release the funds? |
True. But, NOBODY could've predicted the absolute mishandling of the funds or total fabrication of the facts by the Administration in order to secure the funds.
The crime here is not so much that Congress was duped into supporting the war but that Bush has done absolutely EVERYTHING wrong since winning Congress' initial approval. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Dear SFN,
I'm sorry that I keep coming back to this quote but the total stupidity of it is making me mental.
Zimmie, why just go back 2 wars? It was also a Dem who got us into WWII.
However, this fact should help even a dunce like you see the problem: The Japanese attacked and we entered WWII.
Going to Iraq because of 9/11 would be the same as Japan attacking us and we retaliate by attacking Mexico. |
I think we fought Germany in WW2 also...correct??? Was attacking Germany like attacking Mexico then too?? |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
I think we fought Germany in WW2 also...correct??? Was attacking Germany like attacking Mexico then too?? |
Hey retard... Japan was already allied with Germany....
Iraq was not allied with Terror.
Oh wait, Terror isn't a country.
See what I did there? :rolleyes:
Oh by the way, you boy Gonzalez lied, twice, care to admit it? |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
No. Iraq and 9/11 are totally unrelated.
9/11 is binLaden's work....Iraq is ours.
But, to answer your question: Yes, the threat in Iraq WAS Bush's creation. |
Really????
Here is what the Clinton admin thought of the Saddam threat:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack
Quote: In congressional testimony in March of 2002 Robert Einhorn, Clinton's assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, summed up the intelligence community's conclusions about Iraq at the end of the Clinton Administration:
"How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously—and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner." |
|
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by cunning lingo
Not to stick up for Bush, but didn't damn near the entire congress, including Kerry ( the 1st time,lol), Clinton, and the rest vote on Iraq- support / release the funds? |
They lied, douche. |
|
|
| mingmen |
When did Clinton invade Iraq? What am I missing here Mike? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
I think we fought Germany in WW2 also...correct??? Was attacking Germany like attacking Mexico then too?? |
Quite flaccid Mike. You should have just not replied if that is the best you have. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| atomizer |
Hussein and terror dot com. Go here: george bush handles me dot com. It's the same place, my friend. Read and vomit, my friend. |
|
|
| sjollypbj |
| How many times can we post bush jr's speech about when "Iraqi's want us out we will get out". Still waiting mrs. president, or like you said its for future leaders to decide. Nice cop-out. I hope they have room next to Milosevic's grave |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
"summed up the intelligence community's conclusions..."
Doesn't say "the Administration's conclusions." |
|
|
| Crazytree |
Murtha is a true Marine hero... telling it how it is and not giving a fuck who doesn't like it.
I guess now the Pentagon hates the troops because they have finally admitted they're working on a "cut-and-run" plan:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-...6/clinton-iraq/ |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
Murtha is a true Marine hero... telling it how it is and not giving a fuck who doesn't like it.
I guess now the Pentagon hates the troops because they have finally admitted they're working on a "cut-and-run" plan:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-...6/clinton-iraq/ |
The pentagon making contingency plans for a withdrawal - especially since there is a real possiblity that a Democrat could be elected President - is not the same as Congress legislating defeat.
The Pentagon has contingency plans for everything - they don't make policy, however. The President is in charge of the conduct of the war - what Murtha and his fellow Democrats are trying to do is usurp the authority of the President and dictate what are troops can and can't do. For example, they have proposed leaving a small contingency of troops to perform specific tasks - train Iraqi troops and provide security for diplomats, for example. This is basically tying the hands of the military who may confront the Quds force and not be able to do anything because it wasn't in Murtha's stupid legislation.
Murtha was a hero who served his country with honor in Vietnam. His conduct while he has been in Congress has been shameful. I don't consider any Congressman who would act as judge, jury and executioner against the Marines who were implicated in the Haditha incident to be a "hero." |
|
|
| Crazytree |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
The Pentagon has contingency plans for everything .... |
 |
|
|
| | |
