ALL TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ...

[THE KOD]

The United Nations and two major human rights groups called Friday for an investigation into the death of Moammar Gadhafi amid questions over the final moments of the late Libyan strongman's life.

"There seem to be four or five different versions of how he died," the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights said in a statement. "More details are needed to ascertain whether he was killed in the fighting or after his capture."

........................................................................

saved someone about 20 million trying that fawk in a court of law.

so boo fawking hoo

 

[Trench]

The United Nations and two major human rights groups called Friday for an investigation into the death of Moammar Gadhafi amid questions over the final moments of the late Libyan strongman's life.

"There seem to be four or five different versions of how he died," the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights said in a statement. "More details are needed to ascertain whether he was killed in the fighting or after his capture."

........................................................................

saved someone about 20 million trying that fawk in a court of law.

so boo fawking hoo

"Human Rights" groups calling for an investigation into the death of Mo-Mo... now that's funny. :142smilie

 

[Trench]

1st I can't find any mention of him giving credit to prior admin for winning this war--

--The war was won "forunately" by time he entered picture.

The fact is -history is already written on Iraq war--you can't change it regardless of how much you try or would like to.

Well then, Professor Dogs, please tell us what the U.S. gained in this so-called "victory"?

I'm genuinely interested in your "fair and balanced" take on what made the death of 4500 American servicemen and women, countless Iraqi citizens and $3 Trillion all worth it?

opcorn2

 

[Chadman]

Help me understand your points, Wayne. Obama credited the troops, the commanders in the field, and the families of the troops for the time they spent in Iraq. I feel that is appropriate, and I don't remember him referring to winning the war - and definitely don't remember him taking credit for winning the war. Maybe you have some of those infamous links you request?

As I figured, you want Obama to credit the Bush administration for something. I guess for winning the war. If you feel that is needed, so be it. The eternal need for self-gratification and praise for your side never ends, does it? Why does this (like everything else that is not deemed negative) have to be about Bush? I never have wanted anyone to take credit for winning whatever it is we were doing there - as I have said all along I don't think we should have gone there in the first place, and I don't think what we achieved (whatever that is) was worth what we spent or lost. I do think it's important to follow through and put an end to it, and Obama has done that.

Now to your NEW point on who is responsible for ending it. NOW - I believe for the first time - you are putting up a document that I guess Bush signed and is responsible for. I guess you want that to be the way things are judged. This document shows - as you now want us to see - that Bush was ultimately responsible for naming the date the troops would be pulled out. That begs the question:

Why were Obama and the democrats ROASTED by you and republicans for suggesting a verifiable end date to our occupation of Iraq, when Bush and his administration had supposedly already done that? Why is this only being brought up by you now, in hopes of giving Bush credit for the VERY THING YOU RAILED OBAMA AND DEMS FOR DOING FOR YEARS?!? NOW it's an important point of your argument? Seriously? Will this madness never end?

As to your point about how the middle east would look like today if we hadn't occupied Iraq, I can't say. Who really can? It seems to be extremely volatile and chaotic - even more so than before. I would assume that had we not gone into Iraq we would have taken Bin Laden out sooner, been more focused on the real "war on terror" that your boy initiated, and we certainly could have been in better shape economically, safety-wise, and been focused on other important areas in the world and at home. But I don't want to get caught up in what *could* have happened, as that will be pure conjecture. I think dealing with what *has* happened is a bit more appropriate.

One thing I will commit to memory from this discussion though. YOU want to make sure we all know that Bush and his people made public the official withdrawal date from Iraq. Before Obama and the dems had ANYTHING to do with it. Can you add this to those bookmarked links you have, for reference?

 

[Duff Miver]

Well then, Professor Dogs, please tell us what the U.S. gained in this so-called "victory"?

I'm genuinely interested in your "fair and balanced" take on what made the death of 4500 American servicemen and women, countless Iraqi citizens and $3 Trillion all worth it?

opcorn2

Apparently doggie is hiding under the bed, so I'll tell you what we "won".

A trillion dollars paid to Halliburton and other contractors.

4500 dead young American folks.

25,000 seriously wounded.

At least 100K dead Iraqi non-combatants.

The hatred of a majority of Iraqis, and a source of motivation for AlQaeda.

3 trillion added to the national debt.

So, in doggie's warped mind, we should be erecting a huge statue to GWB, in remembrance of his excellent leadership.

 

[bleedingpurple]

Can't people just be happy that it is over and the troops will be coming home.. Nope, lets worry if O is going to give Bush is due? :mj07: :mj07:

For What?

Fuck you can't make this shit up!

 

[THE KOD]

Why were Obama and the democrats ROASTED by you and republicans for suggesting a verifiable end date to our occupation of Iraq, when Bush and his administration had supposedly already done that? Why is this only being brought up by you now, in hopes of giving Bush credit for the VERY THING YOU RAILED OBAMA AND DEMS FOR DOING FOR YEARS?!? NOW it's an important point of your argument? Seriously? Will this madness never end?

........................................................................

crickets for sure

no way he even trys to respond to this

 

[THE KOD]

Can't people just be happy that it is over and the troops will be coming home.. Nope, lets worry if O is going to give Bush is due? :mj07: :mj07:

For What?

Fuck you can't make this shit up!

...............................................................


Yeh the blame it on Bush crowd dont like it when Bush dont get proper credit for his war crimes.

 

[THE KOD]

Condoleezza Rice clashed repeatedly with Vice President Dick Cheney over what to do with captured terrorism suspects and at one point even threatened to resign when she felt circumvented, according to a memoir of her time in Washington, due out next month.

In the book, Ms. Rice provides a vivid account of the tumultuous years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, when the Bush administration struggled to reinvent the national security structure to protect the country from a new kind of enemy. Along the way, she writes, the president?s team disagreed sometimes heatedly.

First as national security adviser and later as secretary of state, Ms. Rice often argued against the hard-line approach that Mr. Cheney and others advanced. The vice president?s staff was ?very much of one ultra-hawkish mind,? she writes, adding that the most intense confrontation between her and Mr. Cheney came when she argued that terrorism suspects could not be ?disappeared? as in some authoritarian states.

In November 2001, she writes, she went to President George W. Bush upon learning that he had issued an order prepared by the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, authorizing military commissions without telling her. ?If this happens again,? she told the president, ?either Al Gonzales or I will have to resign.?

Mr. Bush apologized. She writes that it was not his fault and that she felt that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Cheney?s staff had not served the president well.

Ms. Rice?s book, ?No Higher Honor,? was obtained by The New York Times in advance of its Nov. 1 publication by Crown Publishing, a division of Random House. It is the latest in a string of memoirs emerging from Bush administration figures trying to define the history of their tenure.

But this volume, at 734 pages, deals only with her time in office, making it the most expansive record of those eight years by any of the leading participants. (Ms. Rice described her family background in an earlier book.)

The flurry of books has underscored in stark terms the tensions within the Bush team. Ms. Rice bristled at memoirs by Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, which criticized her management of the National Security Council in the first term and her efforts to increase diplomacy in the second term. But she writes that the disputes were over substantive issues and were not personal.

She uses the book to remind readers of the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty after Sept. 11 that shaped policy making. In addition to the anthrax attacks that fall, she recounts other scares that were not disclosed at the time, including feared attacks on Washington with smallpox and radiological weapons. It was in that context that Mr. Bush and his team sought ways to stop future attacks.

Ms. Rice was perhaps Mr. Bush?s closest adviser, often dining with the first family and spending weekends at Camp David. But she writes of one time that she and the president spoke sharply with each other in a meeting in December 2006 over whether to send more troops to Iraq. He favored an increase in troop levels and a new strategy to protect the Iraqi population, while she instead wanted to pull troops out of the cities.

?So what?s your plan, Condi?? the president asked testily, as she recounts it. ?We?ll just let them kill each other, and we?ll stand by and try to pick up the pieces??

She writes that she was angered by the implication that she did not care about winning in Iraq and retorted that ?if they want to have a civil war we?re going to have to let them.?

After the meeting, she writes, she followed Mr. Bush to the Oval Office to press her point, telling him, ?No one has been more committed to winning in Iraq than I have.? He disarmed her, saying, ?I know, I know,? and she describes his facial expression as pained over a war going badly.

The most intense confrontation came in August 2006 when she urged Mr. Bush to acknowledge holding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other terrorism suspects in secret prisons overseas. She and Mr. Cheney argued for several minutes while others remained uncomfortably silent. Mr. Bush sided with Ms. Rice and moved the suspects to the detention center at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba
....................................................................

Bush and Cheney and the boys were one ultra hawkish bunch.

how did we not know that


Too bad Ronnie and DTBlackgumby could not see that as fact.

I always have liked Condi Rice.

Rummy thought she was not on his level :142smilie

 

[Trench]

Can't people just be happy that it is over and the troops will be coming home.. Nope, lets worry if O is going to give Bush is due? :mj07: :mj07:

For What?

Fuck you can't make this shit up!

Yup, we're all happy the troops are coming home, BP. :0074

It's the white-washing of history by declaring some sort of nebulous victory that some of us have a problem with.

Now, how about getting them the fuck out of Afghanistan too?

 

[THE KOD]

Yup, we're all happy the troops are coming home, BP. :0074

It's the white-washing of history by declaring some sort of nebulous victory that some of us have a problem with.

Now, how about getting them the fuck out of Afghanistan too?

.....................................................................

It was reported today that Afghanistan said that if the US starts war with Pakistan , the Afghans will fight with Pakistan

wtf are we doing there

let these people eat dirt.

fawk them dirty shit pants donkey jockey fawkers.

get out now

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Help me understand your points, Wayne. Obama credited the troops, the commanders in the field, and the families of the troops for the time they spent in Iraq. I feel that is appropriate, and I don't remember him referring to winning the war - and definitely don't remember him taking credit for winning the war. Maybe you have some of those infamous links you request?

As I figured, you want Obama to credit the Bush administration for something. I guess for winning the war. If you feel that is needed, so be it. The eternal need for self-gratification and praise for your side never ends, does it? Why does this (like everything else that is not deemed negative) have to be about Bush? I never have wanted anyone to take credit for winning whatever it is we were doing there - as I have said all along I don't think we should have gone there in the first place, and I don't think what we achieved (whatever that is) was worth what we spent or lost. I do think it's important to follow through and put an end to it, and Obama has done that.

Now to your NEW point on who is responsible for ending it. NOW - I believe for the first time - you are putting up a document that I guess Bush signed and is responsible for. I guess you want that to be the way things are judged. This document shows - as you now want us to see - that Bush was ultimately responsible for naming the date the troops would be pulled out. That begs the question:

Why were Obama and the democrats ROASTED by you and republicans for suggesting a verifiable end date to our occupation of Iraq, when Bush and his administration had supposedly already done that? Why is this only being brought up by you now, in hopes of giving Bush credit for the VERY THING YOU RAILED OBAMA AND DEMS FOR DOING FOR YEARS?!? NOW it's an important point of your argument? Seriously? Will this madness never end?

As to your point about how the middle east would look like today if we hadn't occupied Iraq, I can't say. Who really can? It seems to be extremely volatile and chaotic - even more so than before. I would assume that had we not gone into Iraq we would have taken Bin Laden out sooner, been more focused on the real "war on terror" that your boy initiated, and we certainly could have been in better shape economically, safety-wise, and been focused on other important areas in the world and at home. But I don't want to get caught up in what *could* have happened, as that will be pure conjecture. I think dealing with what *has* happened is a bit more appropriate.

One thing I will commit to memory from this discussion though. YOU want to make sure we all know that Bush and his people made public the official withdrawal date from Iraq. Before Obama and the dems had ANYTHING to do with it. Can you add this to those bookmarked links you have, for reference?

Still waiting on those links Chad-

---and my prob is same as it was on your 1st post---attempts to change history

We have your statement that withdrawal was credited to Obama--and mine was to the contrary--my concern is when question comes up in class room about end of war --that the truth be-- told-- (links attached)

http://news.yahoo.com/iraqs-government-not-obama-called-time-u-troop-201209051.html
Iraq's Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence
<CITE id=yui_3_3_0_1_1319365907065402 class="byline vcard">By TONY KARON | Time.com ? <ABBR id=yui_3_3_0_1_1319365907065401 title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z>Fri, Oct 21, 2011</ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z></ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z>President Barack Obama's announcement on Friday that all 40,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq will leave the country by New Year's Eve will, inevitably, draw howls of derision from GOP presidential hopefuls ? this is, after all, early election season. But the decision to leave Iraq by that date was not actually taken by President Obama ? it was taken by President George W. Bush, and by the Iraqi government.</ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z>
In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he'd launched in March of 2003.
</ABBR></CITE><CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z></ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-iraq-20111022,0,4059857.story</ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z></ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z></ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z>Mission's end</ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z></ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z></ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z></ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z></ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z>The decision to withdraw the troops hinged on the failure of Iraq and American leaders to cut a deal over a narrow issue: legal immunity for American troops in Iraq.</ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z></ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z>Obama administration officials say they wanted to leave thousands of troops for anti-terror operations and to help train Iraqi security forces. Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wanted American troops to stay, but he couldn't persuade lawmakers to go along. In the end, Iraq refused to provide U.S. troops with legal protection from Iraqi courts. Without it, American soldiers could be vulnerable to arrest and punishment under Iraq laws.

</ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z></ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z>
</ABBR></CITE><CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z>Somehow I think the above "facts" are much more relevant/accurate than--</ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z></ABBR></CITE>
<CITE class="byline vcard"><ABBR title=2011-10-21T20:12:09Z>We left Iraq at end of 2011 because O promised we would. </ABBR></CITE>

--and while on subject of truth--

-we will be keeping close to 17,000
"employees" there after 2011 just not "troops"
per condition of agreement. (wink wink) :SIB

 

[THE KOD]

We have your statement that withdrawal was credited to Obama--and mine was to the contrary--my concern is when question comes up in class room about end of war --that the truth be-- told-- (links attached)

.........................................................................

:142smilie :142smilie

it is ironic that you even care about what children are taught in class.

other than give the rich tax breaks because they create jobs. Oh yeh that works :SIB

Lets just tell the kids it was a shit Bush war with a shit Bush President who made shit decisions and should be rememered as Bush shit.

that should do it

like you really care about what is taught in schools.

maybe teach them about how Bush got elected by cheating and having the supreme court in his pocket.

yeh that would be a good lesson

 

[StevieD]

Well one truth to be told is that Iraq now has Weapons of Mass Destruction.

 

[Skulnik]

.....................................................................

It was reported today that Afghanistan said that if the US starts war with Pakistan , the Afghans will fight with Pakistan

wtf are we doing there

let these people eat dirt.

fawk them dirty shit pants donkey jockey fawkers.

get out now

Agree on this, Fuck those ungrateful cocksuckers, Drone their fucking asses.


JMHO

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

I would have liked to have seen O and our commanders get their wish and keep a small presence (2,000 to 5,000) troops there.

Why?

 

[Cie]

Can't people just be happy that it is over and the troops will be coming home.. Nope, lets worry if O is going to give Bush is due? :mj07: :mj07:

For What?

Fuck you can't make this shit up!

I simply don't get it, bp. Can't agree more with ya on this.....

 

[Chadman]

As expected Wayne, you completely avoided my points and changed the subject back to what you want to talk about. You still want links? To what? To Bush for "winning the war?" There aren't any specifically to that because he wasn't talking about winning the war. So what the Hell do you want? You want links to something that didn't happen, wasn't mentioned, and wasn't a part of the speech? And you want to be taken seriously in this discussion? Wait, don't answer that...

You post more links to Bush "ending the war." I asked you for some perspective on THAT - keeping on YOUR point. You avoid that completely (with good reason, granted...). And then demand that I focus on your points and ask for non-existent links that would never have happened unless you post the concept here. You can't just post your opinion and hold Obama responsible for making comments about it in his speech. I answered you. Completely. You avoided my comments and question.

Carry on.

 

[THE KOD]

As expected Wayne, you completely avoided my points and changed the subject back to what you want to talk about. You still want links? To what? To Bush for "winning the war?" There aren't any specifically to that because he wasn't talking about winning the war. So what the Hell do you want? You want links to something that didn't happen, wasn't mentioned, and wasn't a part of the speech? And you want to be taken seriously in this discussion? Wait, don't answer that...

.

.....................................................................

its his MO when he is dumbfounded.

 

[Chadman]

He's not dumbfounded, Scott. He has a good grasp on the issues. It's one of the reasons why I discuss with him and not some others here. We don't agree on a lot, but it's at least a discussion.