or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another example of Bush's Iraq failure: This is a RAEL issue not a GOP boo-boo issue.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another example of Bush's Iraq failure: This is a RAEL issue not a GOP boo-boo issue.

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct17.html

That's right race fans. Another insider has come forward to say that the war in Iraq is not as apple-pie and lemon-aid smooth as we have been lead to believe. This insider came forward in the form of a written report submitted a YEAR ago so this particular incident isn't akin to other outed Bush admin failures but an outing nonetheless.

This strongly ties in to the recent decision of 18 soldiers to refuse a 'suicide mission'.

Oh, Is the world really safer now? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct17.html Well, a substantial number of people--myself included--don't think so.

Anyway, I know this wont phase our AO Bush supporters in the least because Bush has already assured them things are going fine. The rest of us are intelligent enough to connect the dots of bad report after bad report after bad report which are coming from within our own government in many cases. Things are not blue skies and gum-drop streams as we have been told on a daily basis. Some of us don't take 'faith' in Bush as assurance that all is good in the world.

My 2¢ what do ya'll think?
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #2 of 15
Thread Starter 
Can I get a mod to fix the word REAL in the thread title please?

Danke.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #3 of 15
Thread Starter 
More on the Sanchez memo. Guess what guys and dolls who firmly believe Bush is doing a good job in Iraq--he's not. The Sanchez memo is yet another log on the shit-pile know as the Bush admin: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...raq/index.html
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #4 of 15
Thread Starter 
Now Kerry's getting into the act: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/prez.iraq/

"Mr. President, when it comes to the war in Iraq, it is time to come clean and acknowledge what your military leaders have told you privately," he said. "The bottom line, Mr. President, is that your mismanagement of the war has, in fact, made Iraq and America less safe and less secure than they could have been and that they should have been today."
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #5 of 15
Thread Starter 
How can anyone in their right mind beleive Bush and his band of outlaws are accomplishing great things in Iraq? Seriously? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/in...rtner=homepage
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #6 of 15
Oh no. A memo was written, and actions were taken to fix the problem. The horror.

The fact that a Kerry supporter could even bring himself to talk about shortages of supplies after Kerry voted against the appropriations bill is fucking joke.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh no. A memo was written, and actions were taken to fix the problem. The horror.

The fact that a Kerry supporter could even bring himself to talk about shortages of supplies after Kerry voted against the appropriations bill is fucking joke.

If there's no problem with the strategy ...

why

is

falluja

a

battleground?

'We' were right, 'you' were wrong. My predictions, posted on this board, were crystal-ball perfect. Yours, reading from the GOP crib sheet, were totally fucking wrong.

Just admit it.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #8 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
The fact that a Kerry supporter could even bring himself to talk about shortages of supplies after Kerry voted against the appropriations bill is fucking joke.

Yes, the appropriations bill, a version of which kerry previously voted for before and bush said he would veto because it contained additional funding for reservists and vets.

The only 'fucking joke' around here would be your idea of honesty...if you had one.
post #9 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh no. A memo was written, and actions were taken to fix the problem. The horror.

The fact that a Kerry supporter could even bring himself to talk about shortages of supplies after Kerry voted against the appropriations bill is fucking joke.


Fred Rogers says you're living in a land of make believe



Did you bother to read any of the articles or did you stop at the headlines and draw a conclusion? The memo shows we rushed to war without a way to secure the piece. We rushed to war without fully equipping or troops with the best supplies possible. We rushed to war so Hans Blix could not tell the world Saddam had no WMD--because that would've ruined PNAC's plans now wouldn't it?

The war dogs have shown themselves to be wrong at every turn. Try reading the articles.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
The fact that a Kerry supporter could even bring himself to talk about shortages of supplies after Kerry voted against the appropriations bill is fucking joke.

I can't really tell if you honestly believe this argument, or if you just think you've got a great "zinger", and you're going to zing away regardless of how hollow it is.

A big deal is made over the "I voted for it, then I voted against it" so-called "flip-flop".

Have you ever asked yourself why there were two occasions for Kerry to vote for the $87 billion to fund the war in Iraq?

Because the first time the funding was up for a vote, REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST IT. Why? Because Democrats thought we should cut some tax cuts rather than just piling on more debt. Patriotic, troop-supporting, tough-on-defense Republicans, however, thought that giving up their precious tax cuts was too high a price to pay for supporting the troops.

The second time the $87 billion was up for a vote the measure passed because it had been fixed to properly reflected real Republican priorities -- tax cuts were better protected than our soldiers were. Kerry voted against that version of the bill, and made clear why he did so -- because he thought the sacrifices of war should be shared by <gasp!> even the rich. He also knew full well that the soldiers would get the money, because he knew the bill would pass without his support, and even if it didn't pass, a third version of the bill could be put up to vote on.

At no time did Kerry ever put this funding at risk by his vote.

That's quite a different matter than the Republican-controlled Congress never bringing to the floor for any bill that Kerry or anyone else could vote for that would have provided the proper supplies, and quite a different matter from Bush showing the kind of leadership needed to make sure the troops get what they need. No-bid contracts for Halliburton seem to have been a much higher Bush priority.

But none of this will stop you from wielding a completely distorted oversimplification of Kerry's position as a rhetorical club -- and acting, if not actually feeling, totally incensed when someone doesnt swallow such BS at face value.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #11 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I can't really tell if you honestly believe this argument, or if you just think you've got a great "zinger", and you're going to zing away regardless of how hollow it is.

A big deal is made over the "I voted for it, then I voted against it" so-called "flip-flop".

Have you ever asked yourself why there were two occasions for Kerry to vote for the $87 billion to fund the war in Iraq?

Because the first time the funding was up for a vote, REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST IT. Why? Because Democrats thought we should cut some tax cuts rather than just piling on more debt. Patriotic, troop-supporting, tough-on-defense Republicans, however, thought that giving up their precious tax cuts was too high a price to pay for supporting the troops.

The second time the $87 billion was up for a vote the measure passed because it had been fixed to properly reflected real Republican priorities -- tax cuts were better protected than our soldiers were. Kerry voted against that version of the bill, and made clear why he did so -- because he thought the sacrifices of war should be shared by <gasp!> even the rich. He also knew full well that the soldiers would get the money, because he knew the bill would pass without his support, and even if it didn't pass, a third version of the bill could be put up to vote on.

At no time did Kerry ever put this funding at risk by his vote.

That's quite a different matter than the Republican-controlled Congress never bringing to the floor for any bill that Kerry or anyone else could vote for that would have provided the proper supplies, and quite a different matter from Bush showing the kind of leadership needed to make sure the troops get what they need. No-bid contracts for Halliburton seem to have been a much higher Bush priority.

But none of this will stop you from wielding a completely distorted oversimplification of Kerry's position as a rhetorical club -- and acting, if not actually feeling, totally incensed when someone doesnt swallow such BS at face value.

Post of the day!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #12 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I can't really tell if you honestly believe this argument, or if you just think you've got a great "zinger", and you're going to zing away regardless of how hollow it is.

A big deal is made over the "I voted for it, then I voted against it" so-called "flip-flop".

Have you ever asked yourself why there were two occasions for Kerry to vote for the $87 billion to fund the war in Iraq?

Because the first time the funding was up for a vote, REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST IT. Why? Because Democrats thought we should cut some tax cuts rather than just piling on more debt. Patriotic, troop-supporting, tough-on-defense Republicans, however, thought that giving up their precious tax cuts was too high a price to pay for supporting the troops.

The second time the $87 billion was up for a vote the measure passed because it had been fixed to properly reflected real Republican priorities -- tax cuts were better protected than our soldiers were. Kerry voted against that version of the bill, and made clear why he did so -- because he thought the sacrifices of war should be shared by <gasp!> even the rich. He also knew full well that the soldiers would get the money, because he knew the bill would pass without his support, and even if it didn't pass, a third version of the bill could be put up to vote on.

At no time did Kerry ever put this funding at risk by his vote.

That's quite a different matter than the Republican-controlled Congress never bringing to the floor for any bill that Kerry or anyone else could vote for that would have provided the proper supplies, and quite a different matter from Bush showing the kind of leadership needed to make sure the troops get what they need. No-bid contracts for Halliburton seem to have been a much higher Bush priority.

But none of this will stop you from wielding a completely distorted oversimplification of Kerry's position as a rhetorical club -- and acting, if not actually feeling, totally incensed when someone doesnt swallow such BS at face value.

That's a crock of shit and you know it. He VOTED AGAINST THE VERSION OF THE BILL THAT WAS PASSED. There is absolutely no way to explain that. There is also no way to explain that fact that when asked on NATIONAL TV if he would vote against the bill if it wasn't the version he wanted, he said that "no US Senator is going to [abandon our troops]....that would be reckless". Then he voted....wait for it.....AGAINST a version he didn't like.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Yes, the appropriations bill, a version of which kerry previously voted for before and bush said he would veto because it contained additional funding for reservists and vets.

The only 'fucking joke' around here would be your idea of honesty...if you had one.

I don't care what Bush said he would veto. Kerry voted against the final passage of the supplemental bill. I'm sure he felt there was a better version of the bill to pass. That's not the point. He voted against a major supplemental package after voting to allow the President to send troops into harms way.

By the way shetline: You sound like a Kerry commerical. If I hear "rush to war without a plan to win the peace" one more time I'm going throw up.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
If there's no problem with the strategy ...

why

is

falluja

a

battleground?

'We' were right, 'you' were wrong. My predictions, posted on this board, were crystal-ball perfect. Yours, reading from the GOP crib sheet, were totally fucking wrong.

Just admit it.

And these predictions were what exactly? Further, how do these prophecies of yours support an argument that Kerry should replace Bush as President? Oh wait, I forgot: Kerry only voted for the "threat" of force, to a "rush to war". I mean it's not like he said he would have voted the same way even if he knew what he knows now. Oh, errrrr...wait.



And let me just ask: What person in the administration came out and said it would be a "cakewalk" to occupy Iraq? No, this is a charge that the LEFT has thrown out. It's a typical leftist lie that the Necons "said this would be easy." No one said that. In fact, Bush said the opposite at the start of combat.

And now, we don't hear the stories of positive progress in Iraq, even though they do in fact exist. We don't hear how much of the country is stable and secure, even though it is. We don't hear how the military supports Bush by a 2 to 1 margin, even though it does. All we see are explosions in Fallujah and Baghdad put forth by the liberal media, coupled by the defeatist rhetoric of Kerry-Edwards. You're no better. You might as well just start hoping openly that we lose and withdraw in shame.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #15 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's a crock of shit and you know it. He VOTED AGAINST THE VERSION OF THE BILL THAT WAS PASSED. There is absolutely no way to explain that. There is also no way to explain that fact that when asked on NATIONAL TV if he would vote against the bill if it wasn't the version he wanted, he said that "no US Senator is going to [abandon our troops]....that would be reckless". Then he voted....wait for it.....AGAINST a version he didn't like.

I'm sorry SDW, but you'd have to be stupid to believe what you're saying.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another example of Bush's Iraq failure: This is a RAEL issue not a GOP boo-boo issue.