Finally, some reality

[kosar]

It's almost impossible to believe, but the dose of reality was administered by Rumsfeld.

While Cheney just recently said that the insurgency was 'in it's last throes,' Rumsfeld said yesterday that it will be years before the insurgency is quelled and if it does happen, it won't happen until long after our troops are gone.

I'm sure Dr. Evil Cheney was just thrilled with that HONEST point of view.

 

[Master Capper]

So True

 

[dawgball]

Outside of a very bad sound bite of Mission Accomplished, I thought I had always heard Bush talk about this being a long-term event. I may be wrong because I don't read or watch a lot of political commentary.

I do understand that Cheney made some extremely bad comments, but what has Bush' stance been on the timeline? (this is a question that I really don't know the answer on).

 

[StevieD]

At the very least Rumsfeld should be fired for either being an outright liar or the incompetent member of any cabinet in history. Back before we attacked he said he wasn't sure how long we would remain in Iraq. His quote was something like 5 days, 5 weeks, or 5 months. Five months! that was the top estimate this creep came up with. Now he is saying it might be 12 years! The guy should be fired and if the guy who should fire him won't fire him then he should be fired! You don't get to screw up like that.

 

[kosar]

Outside of a very bad sound bite of Mission Accomplished, I thought I had always heard Bush talk about this being a long-term event. I may be wrong because I don't read or watch a lot of political commentary.

I do understand that Cheney made some extremely bad comments, but what has Bush' stance been on the timeline? (this is a question that I really don't know the answer on).

Bush has NEVER said that it would be a long term occupation. If he had said that at the outset, do you think he would have had 80% approval regarding the impending war in 2003 as opposed to the 40% that he has now?

Not only did he not say that at the outset, he hasn't said that since, or ever. He's just pulling the string along the ground with the obedient cat following along forever.

He has always fallen back on the, 'we'll leave when the mission is accomplished' bullshit.

As horribly inept as Rumsfeld is as a war planner, he is the first from this admin to actually acknowledge the truth in regards to the clusterf*ck that is Iraq.

 

[ferdville]

If we fired everyone in government that lied or mislead us, there wouldn't be anybody left. Maybe that is a good idea.

 

[StevieD]

These are some serious lies Ferdville. The guy who was in charge of the whole thing told us 5 months tops, now he says it could be 12 years. Nevermind that we never should have went in there in the first place. This is like the gang who couldn't shoot straight. First he miscalulates the amount of soldiers. The soldiers he sends are not armed correctly. He passes that off by saying you go to war with what you have not what you want. That is true if you are attacked but Iraq never attacked us. The guy is inept at best and crooked at worst and even if he falls somewhere in between he should be fired.

 

[smurphy]

Things would go faster if all the pro-Bush, pro-war, "bomb em all" critics would get off theie butts and sign up for service already. Country is calling, where are they? What, they make it to the polls, make it to every argument, but can't make it to the war itself?

 

[dr. freeze]

Things would go faster if all the pro-Bush, pro-war, "bomb em all" critics would get off theie butts and sign up for service already. Country is calling, where are they? What, they make it to the polls, make it to every argument, but can't make it to the war itself?

Likewise, our debt would be much less if all the pro-tax, pro-indebted servitude, more government is the answer critics would get off their butts and pay more taxes already. Country is calling, where are they? What, they make it to the polls, make it to every argument, but don't want to pay more taxes themselves?

 

[dr. freeze]

These are some serious lies Ferdville. The guy who was in charge of the whole thing told us 5 months tops, now he says it could be 12 years

Hmm, your criteria for lying seems to be a little vague.

If I told you 7 months ago that the Heat were going to win the championship, then told you 1 week ago that the Spurs would do so, would I have been lying?

 

[smurphy]

Likewise, our debt would be much less if all the pro-tax, pro-indebted servitude, more government is the answer critics would get off their butts and pay more taxes already. Country is calling, where are they? What, they make it to the polls, make it to every argument, but don't want to pay more taxes themselves?

Sure man, I'm with you on that one. But it's not the topic of this thread.

Some of us try to pay more taxes anyway, but Dubya cut them, only to make the deficit worse. Hey - what costs more, a war or some government spending which actually can help people. Obviously the former because the hated ultimate Liberal Clinton sure kept a balanced budget, didn't he?

What a sham - Bush isn't big spending, big government. Right. He's spent more than anybody. What a joke.

 

[THE KOD]

Bush talks tonight.

maybe he will tell us something

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Its not really that hard to figure out--As long as there are Muslim terrorist they will be assualting ALL free areas--as noted long ago-anywhere in world muslims exist there are terrorist etrocities.

Length of time we are in Iraq--as it has been said by many over 100 times we will leave when Iraq can handle the terrorist on their own.

Fortunatly I think it can be done before GW's trem expires which will save a liberal getting in power---then running--then whining how "we" lost.

Anyone ever read Alquadas fatah(spl) ie training and doctrine manual??? They gloat the U.S. is easily defeated because "they can't stomach bloodshed of their own" and site Vietnam-Somolia ect as examples--they are wrong on this president--however the liberals and media have been falling right in line for them.

 

[Marco]

"We will leave when Iraq can handle the terrorist on thier own."

Better file a change of address kit for those enlisted.....recruits are getting tougher to find and the US reneges on its promises to the enlistees about time commitments.....

If we can't slow them down in two years, being the worlds premier military force, then better figure we're going to be there 10 or 20 years, all at $177 million dollars a day. "Site Vietnam" as an example.....we spent ten years in Nam and they folded like a map ten years later when we left and the north just poured out of the jungle.....

I guess the Russians were just pussies because they couldn't handle the Afghans for spending a decade fighting and then calling it quits?

 

[dawgball]

He has always fallen back on the, 'we'll leave when the mission is accomplished' bullshit.

I interpret that as long term if necessary. I don't expect our leaders, no matter the party, to be able to give a timeframe when we are facing an organization like we are. I do expect them to complete a job that is started IF we still determine that it is a job worth completing. There are cases where we have to reevaluate and cut losses if necessary.

I, personally, do feel that any efforts to the detriment of terrorists is worth completing. Do I wish we were concentrating our country's efforts somewhere else? Yes, but I feel we need to finish what is going on now then move one when the mission is accomplished.

To your original point, kosar, I am very glad Rumsfield finally gave a much larger number for possible length of stay.

 

[kosar]

Yes, but I feel we need to finish what is going on now then move one when the mission is accomplished.

Yeah, but this situation is unique. There really is nothing concrete to tell us when the mission is accomplished.

In fact, if the 'mission' is to eliminate the insurgency, then Rumsfeld is saying that we'll be leaving before that happens. Which is very realistic. He does, however, fail to mention the civil war that we'll be leaving them with.

 

[kosar]

Length of time we are in Iraq--as it has been said by many over 100 times we will leave when Iraq can handle the terrorist on their own.

Fortunatly I think it can be done before GW's trem expires which will save a liberal getting in power---then running--then whining how "we" lost.

It's not just terrorists. It's the factions that will war after we leave.

It's ok to admit a mistake and start making plans to leave. For Christs sake, we'd still be in Vietnam if it was up to you. As Marco mentioned, The Soviets left Afghan after many years after realizing it was a lost cause. Was it the Soviet media that hampered them? lol......ummmm, no.

If you don't believe that that country will be a free for all after we leave, then you have your head in the sand, or maybe you've had too much Cheney snake oil.

Here's a simple fact. We're going to leave that country in worse shape than we found it and we'll have another nice little fundamentalist Islamic enemy over there to boot. A government who really *is* tied in with Al-Qaeda. Sounds great!

But the people with blinders on stay in their trance, chanting, 'must finish mission, must finish mission.'

 

[kosar]

Bush talks tonight.

I'll have my translator handy.

I hope he doesn't go long. The Real World Austin starts at 10.

 

[dr. freeze]

Hopefully the President gets up there and tells the world just what you liberals want:

1. We lose because we are not tough

2. We are cowards

3. We will not fight back

4. We will cater to terrorists

5. We think the government's main responsibility is to provide for our every need/want and not to defend us.

6. There is no reason to fight for what is right and defeat Islamofasciism

 

[smurphy]

We lose because we don't change our behaviour. We don't use less gas, we hold hands with Saudi royalty, we don't have enough people actually willing to fight, we don't actually fight the right enemy, we are too wasteful, we are fat.

Your right, we do cater to terrorists. We do that with every SUV purchase and Saudi ass kiss. We fund Al-Jezeera by patronizing ME oil, then turn around and whine about them.

Yes, we have to defeat Islamofacism - which is why secular (albeit tryannical) Iraq made no sense. There's a reason nobody was against Afghanistan invasion and the administration had full support of the people - that reason is because those were the people who attacked us. Very easy logic.

We have to win this war. I hope Bush says so - I hope he says we need more resources and it will likely last far beyond his presidency. We must win, we need more people enlisting, and we need to make SACRIFICES at home. NOBODY is willing to do that. They'd rather hear words like "final throes" and "freedom on the march" and "mission accomplished" and then drive home in their 10 mpg Escalade.

We must win, and we must do what it takes - which is hella lot more than empty rhetoric and liberal bashing.