BUSH: "Timeline will give enemies victory"

[Azure]

Excuse me 'Azure' but I sure would appreciate it if you would clarify some things for me.

First, if you are from Alberta, Canada, then how can you have neighbors at Fort Lewis which in Washington, USA since those two areas are at least a couple of hundred miles apart?

Second, if you Canadian and since Canada is not part of the Iraqi Coalition Forces, then how can you have family and neighbors fighting in Iraq?

Third, if starting the Iraq War was a mistake and your friends and family are getting hurt and/or killed over this mistake, then why do you continue to support the war?

Thanks in advance for the clarifications!

What a strange question.

I was born at Fort Lewis, Washington...while my dad was serving in the US Army.

After his 20 years he moved to Alberta to take an engineering job on the oilsands.

I have 2 brothers who enlisted into the Army while we lived in Washington, one of whom was killed in Iraq.

Enough for you?

 

[Crossbow]

What a strange question.

I was born at Fort Lewis, Washington...while my dad was serving in the US Army.

After his 20 years he moved to Alberta to take an engineering job on the oilsands.

I have 2 brothers who enlisted into the Army while we lived in Washington, one of whom was killed in Iraq.

Enough for you?

Not quite!

There is still one other question that I had:

Third, if starting the Iraq War was a mistake and your friends and family are getting hurt and/or killed over this mistake, then why do you continue to support the war?

 

[davefoc]

Like I said, arrange a timeline with the Iraqi government, but don't announce it.

I think there is something to this idea and it goes to the heart of the problem with the present situation where congress is trying to take some control away from Bush on the prosecution of this war. It is impossible for the US to be led effectively by the congressional mob especially at a time of war.

The only thing worse than having congress in charge might be to be led by the corrupt, inept, petulant, self serving individual in power right now. The hugely difficult question is how to deal with this problem. It would be nice if some elder statesman Republicans would step forward and take the issue on, but many of them have been so busy slopping at the pork trough that the idea of actual courageous, altruistic behavior right now isn't likely for very many of them. A few of them have made noise along these lines but mostly the noise has not risen to the level that anything has been accomplished by it.

So I think a congress that is willing to make some tentative efforts to reel in this train wreck is about the best that can be hoped for over the next two years. And in a mild defense of Bushco, the pressure to change course is having some effect. I think Bushco has been talking to people, both openly and clandestinely to look for some sort of a solution. Are they doing this now because the time separation from the Iraq Study Group report gives them deniable plausibility for the notion that they are doing this on their own or because they're so desperate to try to fix this mess that they'll even try diplomacy? And whether these discussions can ever go anywhere when blow-them-up-first-and-talk-later-Cheney still seems to be calling most of the shots for this administration is a real question.

 

[Mephisto]

And in a mild defense of Bushco, the pressure to change course is having some effect. I think Bushco has been talking to people, both openly and clandestinely to look for some sort of a solution.

Well, I guess you could say that. At least they're calling it a surge now instead of staying the course and they've posted an opening for a War Czar.

 

[Mephisto]

Here's an update on the recent bombings. Although the CNN website states 180 were killed, the television reports confirm that over 190 have died. Check out what the Iraqis do to their ineffective leaders:

Iraq orders arrest of top Army officer after deadly attacks

POSTED: 4:51 p.m. EDT, April 18, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has ordered the arrest of a top army officer after a string of bombings that killed more than 180 people Wednesday, the prime minister's office announced.

A written statement said the decision was made because of "the weakness of security measures put in place to protect civilians in al-Sadriya," the central Baghdad area where most of the deaths occurred.

Insurgent bombers launched the series of attacks across Baghdad, reflecting the stiff challenges posed by what has been a resilient insurgency. (VIDEO: Watch as death toll climbs after attacks in Iraq )

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/18/iraq.main/index.html

Then there are the usual excuses from the gang of no credibility.

"I think that there is progress being made. I believe that faster progress can be made in the political reconciliation process in Iraq," Gates said. He said there could be progress once "sectarian" factions "decide to live peacefully with one another."

Gates explained that there aren't "thousands of people in the streets in Iraq trying to kill each other."

"What you have are armed gangs of death squads going around killing people. You have large vehicle-borne IEDs that are being used by al Qaeda to try to bring massive casualties to the Shia in hope of stoking sectarian violence."

Gee, Mr. Gates, thanks for clearing that up!

 

[a_unique_person]

Actually, if you think about it, another timeline exists.

When we invade Iraq four years ago we had 160,000 troops now we have 120,000. The insurgents and other's kill 1,000 American soldiers and injure another 10,000 effectively removing them from war. In other words in twelve years, we'll run out of soldiers. That's how long they have to wait.

Like I said, there's a timeline there whether you like it or not, and it's the same timeline that was operating in Vietnam.

 

[Azure]

Not quite!

There is still one other question that I had:

Third, if starting the Iraq War was a mistake and your friends and family are getting hurt and/or killed over this mistake, then why do you continue to support the war?

Because I believe in support the troops - support the mission.

Sure I don't like the war, but does that change anything? Does not supporting it help my brothers when they come home? I found out first hand how draining it can be both mentally and physically for someone coming home from a war zone, only to be met by a harsh response.

Therefore I support my brothers, and I support those that they fight with. And what they fight for.

 

[a_unique_person]

For me, supporting the troops means ensuring they only risk their lives and die for rational reasons, not stupid ones.

 

[Azure]

For me, supporting the troops means ensuring they only risk their lives and die for rational reasons, not stupid ones.

And how should I go about that?

Can I change the war? Sitting here on JREF and bitching daily about what is happening in Iraq, and how stupid Bush is, and how this, and how that...is not changing anything.

Contrary to the opinion of the idiots that do that.

 

[Ladewig]

Iraq is already on the verge of civil war....pulling out will ensure that...

I am almost certain that you are right about that.

The part I am unsure about is will our staying prevent the civil war. Do you really think that this civil war can be prevented?

 

[yinyinwang]

I am almost certain that you are right about that.

The part I am unsure about is will our staying prevent the civil war. Do you really think that this civil war can be prevented?

Even they want to have a civil war, they just can't get enough ammunition to do it, US prevent the large scale of arms to any side to wage a war, that is why they resort to terrorism to achieve their goals.

 

[Mephisto]

Even they want to have a civil war, they just can't get enough ammunition to do it, US prevent the large scale of arms to any side to wage a war, that is why they resort to terrorism to achieve their goals.

With all respects, I don't think the problem is the lack of ammunition:

"White House Downplays Missing Iraq Explosives"

WASHINGTON — The White House acknowledged Monday that nearly 380 tons of powerful explosives were missing from a weapons facility that American forces failed to guard after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, raising fears that the munitions could be given to militants or used for attacks against troops in Iraq…
Using the report to take the offensive Monday, Kerry tried to turn against Bush a key question the president has raised throughout the campaign: Which candidate is best suited to keep the country safe?

“The incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk and put this country at greater risk than we all need,” Kerry said. “George W. Bush has failed the essential test of any commander in chief, to keep America safe.”…

The timing of the theft was in dispute Monday. One Pentagon official said that when U.S. forces advancing toward Baghdad reached the Al Qaqaa military facility in early April 2003, the weapons cache was already gone. He suggested that the Americans had no chance to safeguard the material, which had been labeled and was being monitored by United Nations weapons inspectors.

“It had already been looted by the time U.S. forces went through there,” the senior Defense official said. “When the troops went in, they never saw anything that was tagged.”

Some cast doubt on the Pentagon’s claim. Given the size of the missing cache, it would have been difficult to relocate undetected before the invasion, when U.S. spy satellites were monitoring activity at sites suspected of concealing nuclear and biological weapons…

http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/016228.html

And . . .

Levin, Kennedy Ask Rumsfeld About Missing Explosives in Iraq



WASHINGTON - Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., today wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld regarding the 342 tons of explosives that have been reported missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility in Iraq.

The Senators’ letter follows:

October 27, 2004

The Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld:

We are writing to inquire what specific policy guidance was provided to military commanders in Iraq before, during, and after the U.S. invasion to guarantee that known stockpiles of explosives and ammunition at the Al-Qaqaa facility and elsewhere in Iraq would be secured or destroyed. We are also seeking information as to how that policy has been implemented. Securing these materials should have been one of our highest priorities from the outset of the war.

The disclosure that about 342 tons of high explosives have disappeared from the Al-Qaqaa facility is deeply and profoundly troubling, especially because the facility was so well known to the United States and the international community before the war.

http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=227732

 

[Crossbow]

Because I believe in support the troops - support the mission.

Sure I don't like the war, but does that change anything? Does not supporting it help my brothers when they come home? I found out first hand how draining it can be both mentally and physically for someone coming home from a war zone, only to be met by a harsh response.

Therefore I support my brothers, and I support those that they fight with. And what they fight for.

Thanks much for answering! It really helps me to understand you better.

Therefore, even though you concede that war was a mistake, and your brother died for this mistake, you still want to pursue the war even though it means that others will loose their friends, their brothers, and their family members in order to support the troops fighting a war that is a mistaken war.

While I still fail to understand this logic,
never the less this logic sure does make you happy,

so I wish you the best of luck with it considering that even the people who are responsible for leading the war are now making it known that the USA support for the war will end sooner rather than later.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates_iraq

Gates says 'clock is ticking' on Iraq

FALLUJAH, Iraq - Defense Secretary Robert Gates slipped into Iraq Thursday to warn Iraqi leaders that the U.S. commitment to a military buildup there is not open-ended.

Gates said the political tumult in Washington over financing the military presence in Iraq shows that both the American public and the Bush administration are running out of patience with the war.

"I'm sympathetic with some of the challenges that they face," Gates said of the Iraqis during his surprise visit. But, he said, "the clock is ticking."

Gates added, "Frankly I would like to see faster progress."

...

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Hardly. 9/11 was the true catalyst for the Iraq war. It was an act of war that was chief amongst many before it. While it has become painfully apparent that Iraq was not involved and did not have WMD's ready to supply to AQ; it was still the attack itself coupled with the possibility of worse to come that gave impetus to the Iraq invasion. Hey, don't you remember? You lot were for it before you were against it right? (Well at least your representatives were)

The part bolded in your quote is the only part with any basis in fact. You are correct, 9/11 gave President Bush and the Neocons a chance to whip the country into a frenzy and sell them a fake bill of goods leading otherwise perfectly rational people to encourage this boondoogle.

Thankfully there were some of us who saw through the BS and while we still hope for a resolution in our best interests, that doesn't mean we're going to stop saying "I told you so."

 

[Crossbow]

Yes...I admit it...I fail to understand the culture of defeatism that you so clearly and objectively represent.

I figured as much! You do not know anything substantive about King Leonadis or John Stuart Mill, except for a movie you recently watched and a bit of text that happened to strike your fancy.

Furthermore, it is not take a "culture of defeatism" to recognize that this stupid war was lost before it started, it only takes a small amount of common sense to recognize that this stupid war was lost before it started.

Hardly. 9/11 was the true catalyst for the Iraq war. It was an act of war that was chief amongst many before it. While it has become painfully apparent that Iraq was not involved and did not have WMD's ready to supply to AQ; it was still the attack itself coupled with the possibility of worse to come that gave impetus to the Iraq invasion. Hey, don't you remember? You lot were for it before you were against it right? (Well at least your representatives were)

Gee whiz! You really are stupid, just look at the record.

Originally, the Bush Administration claimed that Iraq of actually having WMDs at the time, and possibly providing the WMDs to terrorists groups was the public rationale for the war.

In the current period, the Bush Administration is now claiming that Iraq had WMD programs and WMD intentions which justify the decision to go to war. That is just as much hogwash as was the original rationale.

Further, two of the three West Virginia Representatives voted against the war as well as one of the two West Virginia Senators voted against the war (Rep Alan Mollohan, Rep Nick Rahall, and Sen Robert Byrd), which essentially, and officially means that the state of West Virginia did not want the war.

So America went to Iraq to make slaves of Iraqis?? Unless this is your premise the paragraph quoted above is pure nonsense.

Again, you are being horribly stupid!

Do you not remember the Abu Ghraib prison scandal?
Do you not remember the dozens of Americans who have gotten into serious legal trouble for beating, torturing, and killing Iraqis?
Do you not remember the counts that have showed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed due to the war?
Do you not remember the other counts that have showed that up to two million Iraqis have fled Iraq due to the war?

Of course the USA did not go to Iraq to make to steal their oil, make slaves of the them, and use their country as a staging area for future wars against other Muslims. But the problem it that many, many Iraqis do believe just that, and that most Iraqis do support attacks on Americans which is why there are so many Iraqis that are fighting so hard against the USA forces in Iraq.

Poor me....alas! But I shall do my very best to recover from my abject disappointment in the loss of you as a potential flying buddy!

But should stupidity itself have any slight mass at all I'm quite sure that I should find consolation for my loneliness in the enhanced performance of the aircraft that your absence will provide.

-z

Good! I guess we agree on one thing at least not to fly with each other.

If my absence helps to keeps you, your plane, and your passengers intact, then that is great! Further, I sure hope for the your sakes of those forementioned that your flying skills are far, far better than the skills you have so adequately demonstrated here at JREF.

 

[yinyinwang]

With all respects, I don't think the problem is the lack of ammunition:



And . . .

That is a lot for terrorism, but it is nothing for a war.

 

[rikzilla]

I figured as much! You do not know anything substantive about King Leonadis or John Stuart Mill, except for a movie you recently watched and a bit of text that happened to strike your fancy.

You really don't know the first thing about me Crossbow. I respectfully request you that you refrain from portraying your assumptions about me as fact.

Furthermore, it is not take a "culture of defeatism" to recognize that this stupid war was lost before it started, it only takes a small amount of common sense to recognize that this stupid war was lost before it started.

For your benefit here is a definition of the term:
de·feat·ism /dɪˈfitɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-fee-tiz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun the attitude, policy, or conduct of a person who admits, expects, or no longer resists defeat, as because of a conviction that further struggle or effort is futile; pessimistic resignation.

Sorry mate, but your attitude meets the definition. The shoe fits CB, wear it with pride. You may find it a more comfortable fit than Harry Reid...seems they pinch him a bit....

Gee whiz! You really are stupid, just look at the record.

Personal attack? Do you not respect Mr. Randi enough to stay civil in his forum??

Originally, the Bush Administration claimed that Iraq of actually having WMDs at the time, and possibly providing the WMDs to terrorists groups was the public rationale for the war.

Old news...

In the current period, the Bush Administration is now claiming that Iraq had WMD programs and WMD intentions which justify the decision to go to war. That is just as much hogwash as was the original rationale.

Tell that to thousands of dead Kurds that were gassed en mass...oh wait you can't, they're dead. I'm interested; how you can argue the innocent intentions of a regime that has already WMD'd a portion of his country with mass casualties?? What convoluted argument can you offer to prove that Saddam's regime was innocent of "WMD programs and WMD intentions"???

Further, two of the three West Virginia Representatives voted against the war as well as one of the two West Virginia Senators voted against the war (Rep Alan Mollohan, Rep Nick Rahall, and Sen Robert Byrd), which essentially, and officially means that the state of West Virginia did not want the war.

I abstain from answering this paragraph as the only pertinent answer involves a West Virginia joke of such hillarious nastiness that decorum prohibits my posting it here. Robert Byrd!!! phhhhft!

Again, you are being horribly stupid!

Again you are asked to abstain from ad hominum attacks.

Do you not remember the Abu Ghraib prison scandal?
Do you not remember the dozens of Americans who have gotten into serious legal trouble for beating, torturing, and killing Iraqis?
Do you not remember the counts that have showed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed due to the war?
Do you not remember the other counts that have showed that up to two million Iraqis have fled Iraq due to the war?

What does any of that have to do with the defeat you are cheerleading for in Iraq?

Of course the USA did not go to Iraq to make to steal their oil, make slaves of the them, and use their country as a staging area for future wars against other Muslims. But the problem it that many, many Iraqis do believe just that, and that most Iraqis do support attacks on Americans which is why there are so many Iraqis that are fighting so hard against the USA forces in Iraq.

Good luck proving this. "Iraqis" do not need to transit from Iran and Syria to Iraq. Most of the jihadis in Iraq targeting US forces are not Iraqi at all. This was a part of the reason Nancy Pelosi visited Bashir Assad:

Pelosi said she and her delegation "expressed our concern about Syria's connections to Hezbollah and Hamas" and discussed the issue of militant fighters slipping across the Syrian border into Iraq.

"These are important issues not only in the fight against terrorism but important priorities for us for peace in the Middle East," she said.

Tell me CB, why do "Iraqis" need to infiltrate Iraq??

Good! I guess we agree on one thing at least not to fly with each other.

I'll meet you in the middle....you can ride "bitch" on the back of my bike...does that help you out any?

If my absence helps to keeps you, your plane, and your passengers intact, then that is great! Further, I sure hope for the your sakes of those forementioned that your flying skills are far, far better than the skills you have so adequately demonstrated here at JREF.

More hot air ad hom from you? Perhaps you should take up ballooning CB, you could shout Moveon.org talking points into a plastic bag and acheive great heights without leaving an overlarge carbon footprint. You should look into it. Airplanes are so very non-green after all! BTW; how do you curb the urge towards liberal self-hatred whilst flying?? Compartmentalization?

-z

 

[Azure]

That is exactly what I want to see happen Crossbow.

Push the Iraqi people/government to get things done.

We can't say screw this and leave.

 

[President Bush]

Sitting here on JREF and bitching daily about what is happening in Iraq, and how stupid Bush is, and how this, and how that...is not changing anything.

That's why I'm in here and you're out there.

Wait a minute... wait a minute. Allah just unavoidably anticipated another mosque blowing up.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Good luck proving this. "Iraqis" do not need to transit from Iran and Syria to Iraq. Most of the jihadis in Iraq targeting US forces are not Iraqi at all.

Tell me CB, why do "Iraqis" need to infiltrate Iraq??

I know that there's a myth amongst war supporters that most Iraqis love us and appreciate our presence while the bombs and fighting are being caused by large numbers of foreign jihadis, but that just isn't the case.
Wiki article

While it is not known how many of those resisting the U.S. occupation in Iraq are from outside the country, it is generally agreed that foreign fighters make up a very small percentage of the insurgency. Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that "99.9 per cent" of captured insurgents are Iraqi.[20] The estimate has been confirmed by the Pentagon's own figures; in one analysis of over 1000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, only 15 were non-Iraqi.[4] According to the Daily Telegraph, information from military commanders engaging in battles around Ramadi exposed the fact that out of 1300 suspected insurgents arrested in five months of 2005, none were non-Iraqi, although Colonel John Gronski stated that foreigners provided money and logistical support...