One hopes he will deliver more than a faux-d'inde to his Iraki clients this day. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The Presdient refused to go after Zarquawi. He was the only terrorist in Iraq prior to the war that had any connection to al Qaeda and Bush didn't want him dead--otherwise it would be that much harder to make the claim that Saddam was allied with Bin Laden. Of course, he was hiding in Kurdistan, under US protection, where Saddam couldn't get him, which makes this assertion doubtful. But true believers like our own DA can have no doubts about The Leader.

I only wonder, other than based upon his experience with a baseball team, how you all have come to read the mind of this Bush fellow so keenly. Are these White Papers you're reading or do you visit the local palm-reader for these insider scoops on U.S. foreign policy?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The Presdient refused to go after Zarquawi. He was the only terrorist in Iraq prior to the war that had any connection to al Qaeda and Bush didn't want him dead--otherwise it would be that much harder to make the claim that Saddam was allied with Bin Laden. Of course, he was hiding in Kurdistan, under US protection, where Saddam couldn't get him, which makes this assertion doubtful. But true believers like our own DA can have no doubts about The Leader.

I only wonder, other than based upon his experience with a baseball team, how you all have come to read the mind of this Bush fellow so keenly. Are these White Papers you're reading or do you visit the local palm-reader for these insider scoops on U.S. foreign policy?

Baseball team. Oil companies. Air National Guard.
Past performance does not guarentee future results, but one doesn't need to be a palm reader to see a pattern of failure. :!:

• Two years later, 40 percent are dead...

I like Bush's batting average. And I really think the raging hate & angst of his detractors and enemies is merely proof of his effectiveness.

Keep your eyes trained to the latest bogus scandal news story, however, and the latest push-poll numbers proudly displayed on page one. I wouldn't want to see ya lose all hope.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The Presdient refused to go after Zarquawi. He was the only terrorist in Iraq prior to the war that had any connection to al Qaeda and Bush didn't want him dead--otherwise it would be that much harder to make the claim that Saddam was allied with Bin Laden. Of course, he was hiding in Kurdistan, under US protection, where Saddam couldn't get him, which makes this assertion doubtful. But true believers like our own DA can have no doubts about The Leader.

I only wonder, other than based upon his experience with a baseball team, how you all have come to read the mind of this Bush fellow so keenly. Are these White Papers you're reading or do you visit the local palm-reader for these insider scoops on U.S. foreign policy?

So you prefer incompetent, then. OK. Bush is, was and apparently will continue to be incompetent. Happy now?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So you prefer incompetent, then.

I was just wondering how you folks know that Bush intended this or that. Do you prefer the local astrologist for these insider scoops on U.S. foreign policy?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

• Two years later, 40 percent are dead...

I like Bush's batting average. And I really think the raging hate & angst of his detractors and enemies is merely proof of his effectiveness.

Keep your eyes trained to the latest bogus scandal news story, however, and the latest push-poll numbers proudly displayed on page one. I wouldn't want to see ya lose all hope.

Is this a Wild Ass Guess, or do you have supporting evidence? Since we appear to be incapable od counting how many innocent civilians have died in Iraq, how can we so accurately count the insurgant dead ... and living? I guess some things are simply amazing. :o

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So you prefer incompetent, then.

I was just wondering how you folks know that Bush intended this or that. Do you prefer the local astrologist for these insider scoops on U.S. foreign policy?

It's either a case of venality or incompetence. I don't claim to know and really don't care. Beelzebub or Beelzeboob: take your pick.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Beelzebub or Beelzeboob: take your pick.

gad, that was funny :lol: Thanks, I need that!

The Repast Corvine

Originally Posted by While dining on black-feathered bird, Mr. John Derbyshire

Since the Iraq war was obviously a gross blunder, is it time for those of us who cheered on the war to offer some kind of apology? Here we are—we, the United States—in our fourth year of occupying that sinkhole, and it looks pretty much like the third year, or the second. Will the eighth year of our occupation, or our twelfth, look any better? I know people who will say yes, but I no longer know any who will say it with real conviction. It’s a tough thing, to admit you were wrong. It’s way tough if you’re a big-name pundit with a reputation to preserve. For those of us down at the bottom of the pundit pecking order, the stakes aren’t so high. I, at any rate, am willing to eat some crow and say: I wish I had never given any support to this fool war.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

The Repast Corvine

Originally Posted by National Review

Since the Iraq war was obviously a gross blunder...

Gee, that warmongering National Review rag is now worth quoting, eh, Sage Saari? Let's get out NOW, just like Clean Gene and McGovern wanted years ago. That way the millions slaughtered in the aftermath (aka Pol Pot) won't have a ton of human bloodletting to blame America for.

History repeats. Cute. :wink:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

The Repast Corvine

Originally Posted by National Review

Since the Iraq war was obviously a gross blunder...

Gee, that warmongering National Review rag is now worth quoting, eh, Sage Saari? Let's get out NOW, just like Clean Gene and McGovern wanted years ago. That way the millions slaughtered in the aftermath (aka Pol Pot) won't have a ton of human bloodletting to blame America for.

History repeats. Cute. :wink:

Didn't actually read it, did you? You might try it before posting.

Derbyshire is a typical armchair warrior, hellbent on sending others into battle to make a point he feels is so terribly important and urgent, but one not requiring his direct participation. He also expects things done the right way, with aplomb and panache, and most importanly, before dinner. He also prefers his wars a bit ruthless, a reason sufficient to restrain him from more active participation.

The only place one can find war in this vein is Hollywood. I will recommend it the him if I see him.

From Pew

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Pew

America's global image has again slipped and support for the war on terrorism has declined even among close U.S. allies like Japan. The war in Iraq is a continuing drag on opinions of the United States, not only in predominantly Muslim countries but in Europe and Asia as well. And despite growing concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the U.S. presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran - and in many countries much more often - as a danger to world peace.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

History repeats. Cute. :wink:

Didn't actually read it, did you? You might try it before posting.

War is hell, else we'll grow quite fond of it. Have you actually come to grips with what al Qeada would like to do to your head, dude?

Oops, I'm sorry, it's those other folks heads in play here. Dubya sucks. We've gotta quit pissin' these folks off and just try an' understand 'em better. Peee you! 8)

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Is this a Wild Ass Guess, or do you have supporting evidence?

Not that it makes any difference (it will not), but you can find the AP link I posted on the previous page in this thread. Otherwise please ignore said "supporting evidence."

"Evangelico-romanticism" :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

• Two years later, 40 percent are dead...

Oh, Da, I wish it was that easy.

Madrid, London and Toronto are indicative of the countertrend -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060613/...ecurity_usa_dc

Not only an increased possibility of terror on the homefront, but an increased possibility of a paranoid reactive police state

I think we all want to avoid this future; we differ on some of the how's. To completely blame Bush or to completely hold him blameless are not only both moronic, but both unhelpful.

Mistakes were made, but where do we go from here?

And along similar lines --

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...220267,00.html

Originally Posted by salsabob

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

• Two years later, 40 percent are dead...

Oh, Da, I wish it was that easy.

Madrid, London and Toronto are indicative of the countertrend -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060613/...ecurity_usa_dc

Not only an increased possibility of terror on the homefront, but an increased possibility of a paranoid reactive police state

I think we all want to avoid this future; we differ on some of the how's. To completely blame Bush or to completely hold him blameless are not only both moronic, but both unhelpful.

Mistakes were made, but where do we go from here?

Investigate Ohio 2004 and perhaps have a new election. Then allow the mothers of dead servicemen to sue MonkeyBoy's @ss in civil courts. Perhaps bring him up on criminal charges too.

Regarding Iraq specifically either:

A) Reinstate the draft, add hundreds of billions in new defense spending, and put 400,000 troops into Iraq like we should have to begin with if we were going to play to win.

OR

B) Pull the f*ck out and tell the UN it's their mess.

Bad options all 'round.

Originally Posted by Mr. Dennis Dale, not a professional writer, with no scholastic credentials, & is not recognized as an authority on any subject, and is not respected in any field.

We have somehow created an atmosphere where no matter how wrong someone is and no matter how far reaching the consequences of their mistakes, they still suffer more professional and personal damage by admitting error and adopting to new realities than by holding the line, dissembling and discrediting their opponents to the bitter end. Spin, spin, sugar.

Admit you're wrong and your fellows will denounce you; your president, no matter how faithfully you've served, will destroy you if your honesty threatens the administration.

DD:"Presented with the shameful mendacity of our president, the corruption of both political parties, and the negligent silence of the media, Derbyshire accepts uncritically the dubious alibi of an administration that has red up to its elbows and fobs it all off on the CIA as a hapless and inept postal service of imperialism. This after the administration did everything to present the hazy and incomplete view of Saddam's war machine as a crystal clear vision of impending doom."

A Cable from C>A>R>R>H>A>E> .pdf (requires Acrobat reader or other .pdf program)

Originally Posted by ~Spengler~ of the Asia [i

Times[/i]]Belief in the Rapture followed by seven years of tribulation does not quite qualify as strategic realism, but it might be a more practical guide to foreign policy than, say, belief in the Balance of Power or in the democratization of the Middle East. I do not believe in a coming Rapture, but I do not think it any less likely than the success of democracy in that region. In fact, Apocalyptic inclinations provide a better sort of mental preparation for Middle Eastern politics than the pap dished out by the political scientists. Sadly, there are no solutions to the problems that bedevil the region.


...The rational criteria by which diplomats attempt to resolve conflicts do not apply to conflicts whose origin lies not in rational self-interest, but in existential desperation. ... And normalcy, as I have argued in the past, is overrated.

~S~:"Americans know that they are on their way, but do not know quite where they are going, or how they will know when they get there. The end of the American journey only can be conceived in apocalyptic terms. In the mega-churches of the US exurbs, Darby's tones strike a chord in the American spirit."

SJM: "By the standards of Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, our neoconservatives are not conservative, they are neosoviet."

Originally Posted by Mr. S. J. Masty in the [i

Times[/i] (UK)]Recently, over rich Afghan ravioli called mantu, a former mujaheddin commander warned me about what was happening. I have been both a relief worker and a writer in Afghanistan, and I have known him almost 20 years. He is now a lawmaker in the new national assembly and as committed to democracy as ever.


“You will lose two wars through the same mistake,” he said. “In our civil war with the northerners, there were only three kinds of Pashtun people who had no dealings with the Taliban — the hopelessly stupid, a handful of western liberals who mostly emigrated, or people too foul to be allowed even into the Taliban.


“By banning even moderate Talibs from government, you excluded the only people who could have brought the majority of Pashtuns into the coalition. Instead you made (President) Hamid Karzai pick his governors from the worst kinds of thieves and killers, serial pederasts and pimps — the very people that the Taliban were initially adored for toppling.”

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

"Operation Mountain Thrust, in which more than 10,000 U.S.-led troops are trying another failed approach to guerrilla war, the sweep. I have no doubt it would break the Mullah Omar Line, if it existed, which it doesn’t." Wm. Lind

Mr Ahmadinejad's latest success came at last weekend's meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a pan-Asian economic and security grouping dominated by China and Russia. Iran hopes to win full SCO membership soon.